Case: Paramsivam  Vs. State Tr.Insp.Of Police

Later at the request of Investigating Officer, body was exhumed in the presence of PW21-Tahsildar. After the body was exhumed, PW34-Dr.Vallinayagam collected the blood for DNA test. Blood samples of PW14-Manickammal and PW15-Subramani (mother and brother of the deceased) were also collected. After conducting DNA test and upon analysis of results of DNA typing for the samples, PW40-Asst. Director gave Ext.P32-Report and opined that "bone pieces etc. described belong to a human male individual". PW40 further opined that "the person Mani alias Paraimani to whom the bone pieces etc. belong is the biological offspring of Ms. A. Manickammal.". Evidence of PW40 would amply establish identity of body recovered from the railway track as that of the deceased Mani alias Parai Mani who is the son of PW14-Manickammal. 15. When deceased is shown to be abducted, it is for the abductors to explain how they dealt with the abducted victim. In the absence of explanation, Court is to draw inference that abductors are the murderers. 16. In State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar and others (2000) 8 SCC 382 , this Court held: “34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted reasoning process would enable the Court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if the accused would tell the Court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody.” 17. In Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 375 , this Court held: “15. The abductors alone could tell the court as to what happened to the deceased after they were abducted. When the abductors withheld that information from the court there is every justification for drawing the inference, in the light of all the preceding and succeeding circumstances adverted to above, that the abductors are the murderers of the deceased.”“19. We pointed out that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but the section would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts for which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a different inference.”“21. We are mindful of what is frequently happening during these days. Persons are kidnapped in the sight of others and are forcibly taken out of the sight of all others and later the kidnapped are killed. If a legal principle is to be laid down that for the murder of such kidnapped there should necessarily be independent evidence apart from the circumstances enumerated above, we would be providing a safe jurisprudence for protecting such criminal activities. India cannot now afford to lay down any such legal principle insulating the marauders of their activities of killing kidnapped innocents outside the ken of others.” 18. In the present case, the prosecution brought on record the evidences that accused no.1 to 3 had abducted the deceased. Therefore, it is accused nos.1 to 3 alone knew what happened to him as the deceased was found murdered within a short time after abduction. The accused nos.1 to 3 have failed to give any explanation and the Court rightly draw presumption that the accused have murdered the deceased Mani alias Parai Mani.19. The prosecution relied upon the statement of accused persons leading to discovery of facts as envisaged u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were arrested on 28.1.2004 at different times. Confession statement of accused no.1 led to recovery of Voter ID Card of Mani (MO9) and other articles i.e. MOs.4 and 5. Confession statement recorded from accused no.2-Selvaraj alias Selvan] led to recovery of Pocket Diary (MO2), Money purse (MO3) with photo of deceased and other articles-MOs.10 to 12. Confession statement of accused no.5 Driver Lingasamy led to seizure of Taxi MO1-Maruthi Omni Van (TN-23 E 5951). Accused no.3-Nirmal and accused no.4-Sureshkumar alias Suresh alias Pambatti were surrendered before the Court and on application, PW41-Investigating Officer took them for police custody. Confession statement recorded from accused no.3 led to recovery of Torch light(MO6) which was handed over to the deceased by PW2 at the time when he left the house. PW2 also identified MO6 as the torch light handed over by her at the time when the deceased left the house. Recovery of various articles of the deceased from accused nos.1 to 3 is a strong incriminating circumstance connecting the appellants with the crime. 20. Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads as under: “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” 21. In Anil alias Raju Namdev Patil v. Administration of Daman & Diu, Daman and another, (2006) 13 SCC 36 , this Court held: “23.The information disclosed by the evidences leading to the discovery of a fact which is based on mental state of affair of the accused is, thus, admissible in evidence.” 22. This Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370 opined that when an object is discovered from an isolated place pointed out by the accused, the same would be admissible in evidence. 23. We have noticed the confessional statement of the appellants, on the basis of which the discovery of material evidence took place. 24. Fro

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]Evidence of PWs.3 and 6 also strengthens prosecution version about the grant of lease.8. Filing of suit on 02.1.2004 about two weeks prior to the occurrence heightens the probability of prosecution case. In cases of circumstantial evidence proof of motive is material consideration and a strongThe evidence of PWs.1 and 2 is cogent and consistent which clearly brings home the circumstance that deceased went along with accused nos. 2 and 3. In the Test Identification Parade conducted by PW38-Judicial Magistrate, PWs.1 and 2 have also identified accused nos. 2 and 3 which would strengthen the stand of thefrom the evidence Ext.P1- complaint we find that PW1 has clearly stated that two persons had come to their house and took the deceased in Maruthi Omni Van. In Ext.P1-Complaint, though PW1 had expressed suspicion about accused nos. 1, 6 and 7, PW1 has clearly expressed his doubts that accused nos. 1, 6 and 7 might have engaged men for abducting the deceased. Such doubts expressed in Ext.P1-Complaint is sufficient incriminating circumstance against the accused nos. 2 and 3. Credibility of PWs.1 and 2 cannot be doubted on the ground of non-mention of name of accused no.2 in Ext.P1-Complaint. The evidence of PW9 also established that the deceased was last seen alive with accused no.1-Paramasivam in Maruthi Omni Van (TN-23 E 5951) near Kinathukadavu Checkpost. In his evidence, PW9 has stated that after taking petrol for TVS-50 in a Petrol Pump near the Checkpost while he was proceeding along with PW8-Sivakumar, he saw the deceased along with accused no.1-Paramasivam in Maruthi Omni Van (MO1) and saw the others inside the Van. Since, deceased and accused no.1-Paramasivam were in inimical terms, PW9 wondered as to why accused no.1 and deceased are seen together and he asked PW8-Sivakumar about the same. Though, PW8-Sivakumar turned hostile, evidence of PW9 is trustworthy and we do not find any reason to take a different view.12. Another circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is evidence of PW15-Subramani (brother of the deceased) that accused no. 1 and another person came to the quarry to see stones. When they were crushing the stones, deceased went with them to see the stones. No doubt evidence of PW15 as to how deceased went with the accused might appear to be slightly different but due to variation of time narrating the events cannot be said in manner the PW15 narrated his statement. We are of the view that evidence of PW15 does not make any dent upon the consistent version of PWs.1 and 2 and the case of prosecution.When deceased is shown to be abducted, it is for the abductors to explain how they dealt with the abducted victim. In the absence of explanation, Court is to draw inference that abductors are theFrom the evidence on record, we find that the Prosecution was successful in bringing on record the circumstantial evidences i.e. existence of motive; the circumstances in which the deceased was last seen alive in the company of appellants-accused nos.1 to 3; death was homicidal and body was found on the railway track mutilated; the body of the deceased was identified through DNA test; on arrest of accused incriminating articles were recovered.In the present case, the prosecution brought on record the evidences that accused no.1 to 3 had abducted the deceased. Therefore, it is accused nos.1 to 3 alone knew what happened to him as the deceased was found murdered within a short time after abduction. The accused nos.1 to 3 have failed to give any explanation and the Court rightly draw presumption that the accused have murdered the deceased Mani alias Parai Mani.19. The prosecution relied upon the statement of accused persons leading to discovery of facts as envisaged u/s 27 of Indian Evidence Act. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were arrested on 28.1.2004 at different times. Confession statement of accused no.1 led to recovery of Voter ID Card of Mani (MO9) and other articles i.e. MOs.4 and 5. Confession statement recorded from accused no.2-Selvaraj alias Selvan] led to recovery of Pocket Diary (MO2), Money purse (MO3) with photo of deceased and other articles-MOs.10 to 12. Confession statement of accused no.5 Driver Lingasamy led to seizure of Taxi MO1-Maruthi Omni Van (TN-23 E 5951). Accused no.3-Nirmal and accused no.4-Sureshkumar alias Suresh alias Pambatti were surrendered before the Court and on application, PW41-Investigating Officer took them for police custody. Confession statement recorded from accused no.3 led to recovery of Torch light(MO6) which was handed over to the deceased by PW2 at the time when he left the house. PW2 also identified MO6 as the torch light handed over by her at the time when the deceased left the house. Recovery of various articles of the deceased from accused nos.1 to 3 is a strong incriminating circumstance connecting the appellants with the crime.This Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh, (1999) 4 SCC 370 opined that when an object is discovered from an isolated place pointed out by the accused, the same would be admissible in evidence.