Case: Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David

the accused is the two suitcases [MOs 13 & 14]. Raja Chidambaram [PW-37], the room mate of the accused, stated in his evidence that the two suitcases in which the blood of the deceased was found belong to the accused. He also stated that MO-22, which is a bag in which the head of the deceased was recovered, also belong to the accused. Shagir Thabris [PW-38] also corroborated the said fact in his evidence. Blood found in the suitcases matched with the blood of the deceased which is blood group `A. It is also proved from the evidence of the students adduced in the case that foul smell was emanating from the said two suitcases and that when accused was asked about the said smell, he only replied that it is because of Biryani, which his mother had given him. Subba @ Vankatesan [PW-28], auto driver, has affirmatively stated that the accused had taken out those two suitcases with him in his auto rickshaw on 06.11.1996 when he dropped him at Chidambaram Railway Station. The hostel chowkidar examined as PW-29 [Vijayarangam] corroborated the said fact. The students of the hostel, Senthilkumar [PW-40], Joe Bulgani [PW-41], not only spoke about the foul smell emanating from the room where those suitcases were kept but also of the fact that the accused had brought those two suitcases with him when he came back to the hostel on 08.11.1996 morning. These are indeed circumstantial evidence but all leading to one conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence of killing the deceased. There is however some doubt with regard to the place of occurrence but there is also strong and cogent evidence to indicate that the room mates of the accused, i.e., PWs 37 and 38, were watching a cricket match during the entire afternoon, evening and till late night on 06.11.1996 in the TV room, and the accused had the room (Room No. 319) all to himself in the afternoon and evening upto 11.00 p.m. The accused left the said room with two suitcases at 8.30 p.m. which is proved by way of evidence of the watchman and auto driver. The room mate of the accused, viz., PW-38, came back to Room No. 319 at about 11.00 p.m. and slept and on the next day went home. 36. There are enough circumstantial evidence, as discussed above, to hold that it is none else but the accused who could have caused the concealment of torso and limbs because it was the accused who had severed the head of deceased-Navarasu as found earlier and, therefore, he must have been in possession to the torso and limbs, which were also subsequently recovered and were also proved to be that of deceased-Navarasu. 37. Therefore, if we look at the case, we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case on circumstantial evidence. In the present case all the witnesses are independent and respectable eye-witnesses and they have not been shown to have any axe to grind against the accused. And from the evidence of the several witnesses, as mentioned above, it is clear that the accused nurtured ill feeling against the deceased as the deceased refused to write the record note for accused; that the deceased was last seen with the accused in the afternoon of 06.11.1996 and he was searching for him very eagerly; that the conduct of the deceased was very weird and strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also produced stinking smell; the recovery of skull from canal water, material objects, like, note books of deceased, gold chain, blood stained bags, knifes etc.,; and also the evidence of PW-66, PW-65 and PW-77 who have categorically stated that the skull, torso and limbs recovered were of the deceased only. 38. It is well-settled proposition of law that the recovery of crime objects on the basis of information given by the accused provides a link in the chain of circumstances. Also failure to explain one of the circumstances would not be fatal for the prosecution case and cumulative effect of all the circumstances is to be seen in such cases. At this juncture we feel it is apposite to mention that in the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy reported in (1999) 8 SCC 715 this Court has held that; the court must have predominance and pre- eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by the investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it. 39. Hence, minor loopholes and irregularities in the investigation process cannot form the crux of the case on which the respondent can rely upon to prove his innocence when there are strong circumstantial evidences deduced from the said investigation which logically and rationally point towards the guilt of the accused. 40. Therefore in our considered opinion prosecution has established its case on the basis of strong and cogent circumstantial evidence and that on the basis of the circumstances proved, there cannot be any other possible or plausible view favouring the accused. The view taken by the High Court is totally erroneous and outcome of misreading and misinterpreting the evidence on record. 41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the High Court erred in reversing the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court as the prosecution has established its case. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restore the judgment and decision of the trial Court but only with one rider that the sentence awarded shall run concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the trial court. While doing so we rely upon sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

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

Explanation:
1[ds]37. Therefore, if we look at the case, we find that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case on circumstantial evidence. In the present case all the witnesses are independent and respectable eye-witnesses and they have not been shown to have any axe to grind against the accused. And from the evidence of the several witnesses, as mentioned above, it is clear that the accused nurtured ill feeling against the deceased as the deceased refused to write the record note for accused; that the deceased was last seen with the accused in the afternoon of 06.11.1996 and he was searching for him very eagerly; that the conduct of the deceased was very weird and strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also produced stinking smell; the recovery of skull from canal water, material objects, like, note books of deceased, gold chain, blood stained bags, knifes etc.,; and also the evidence of PW-66, PW-65 and PW-77 who have categorically stated that the skull, torso and limbs recovered were of the deceased only38. It is well-settled proposition of law that the recovery of crime objects on the basis of information given by the accused provides a link in the chain of circumstances. Also failure to explain one of the circumstances would not be fatal for the prosecution case and cumulative effect of all the circumstances is to be seen in such cases. At this juncture we feel it is apposite to mention that in the case of State of Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy reported in (1999) 8 SCC 715  this Court has held that; the court must have predominance and pre- eminence in criminal trials over the action taken by the investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it39. Hence, minor loopholes and irregularities in the investigation process cannot form the crux of the case on which the respondent can rely upon to prove his innocence when there are strong circumstantial evidences deduced from the said investigation which logically and rationally point towards the guilt of the accused40. Therefore in our considered opinion prosecution has established its case on the basis of strong and cogent circumstantial evidence and that on the basis of the circumstances proved, there cannot be any other possible or plausible view favouring the accused. The view taken by the High Court is totally erroneous and outcome of misreading and misinterpreting the evidence on record41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the High Court erred in reversing the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court as the prosecution has established its case. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order of the High Court and restore the judgment and decision of the trial Court but only with one rider that the sentence awarded shall run concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the trial court. While doing so we rely upon sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973