Case: Kadamanian Vs. State

of the Criminal Procedure Code, they had stated, that they had seen the appellant and the co-accused in the company of the deceased – Jayalakshmi. While recording their statements before the trial Court, Shanmugam – PW6 and Mubarak – PW7 resiled from the version indicated by them, to the investigating officer. It is therefore apparent, that no last seen evidence, could be substantiated by the prosecution, during the course of the trial of the appellant. We are of the view, that the deposition at the hands of Shanmugam – PW6 and Mubarak – PW7, can be described as a matter of improper handling of the case, inasmuch as, both Shanmugam – PW6 and Mubarak – PW7 had also recorded their statements under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, affirming, that they had seen the appellant and the co-accused in the company of the deceased – Jayalakshmi. However, since the statement of the two prosecution witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was not put to them, after they were declared hostile, and were subjected to cross-examination at the behest of the prosecution, we have no alternative, but to overlook the last seen evidence sought to be projected by the prosecution. 10. In the above view of the matter, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that there was no material evidence available on the record of the case, to return a clear finding of guilt, against the appellant. It was submitted, that the circumstantial evidence projected through the prosecution witnesses, did not complete the chain of circumstances, as would establish the guilt of the appellant. 11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. As noticed hereinabove, there was a clear and categoric extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 on 22.1.2008. During the course of recording his testimony, R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 was subjected to vigorous cross-examination. His testimony however remained unshaken. Resultantly, the trial Court, as also, the High Court, concluded that the extra-judicial confession was genuine. We endorse the above determination at the hands of the trial Court and the High Court. Consequent upon the accused-appellants extra-judicial confession, the appellant was taken to the police station by R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, and produced before Inspector Arumugam – PW20. It is therefore apparent, that the arrest of the appellant at the behest of R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, has also been clearly established. The next chain in the circumstantial evidence projected at the hands of the prosecution, was the recovery of the nose-pin on 22.1.2008, based on the statement of the appellant, to Inspector Arumugam – PW20. The afore-stated nose-pin has been identified by the members of the family of the deceased, as the one that was actually worn by the deceased, when she went missing. Since the nose-pin was recovered at the instance of the appellant, from a remote place under an electric transformer, no one but the appellant could have been aware of its location. Its recovery was therefore suffient, along with the other evidence referred to above, to clearly implicate the appellant. It is also necessary for us to mention, that there is yet another aspect of the matter, which furthers the cause of the prosecution, namely, the statement of M.Abdul Khader – PW8. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the appellant used to hire a share-autorikshaw, for earning his livelihood. The aforesaid autorikshaw was hired from the garrage of Annamalai – PW9. M.Abdul Khader – PW8 was engaged as an accountant at the garrage of Annamalai – PW9. It was pointed out in the deposition of M.Abdul Khader – PW8, that on a daily basis the share-autorikshaw hired by the accused-appellant and the co-accused used to be returned to the garrage of Annamalai – PW9 between 8.30 p.m to 9.30 p.m.. However, on the date of occurrence, i.e., the relevant date when the alleged crime was committed, the share-autorikshaw was returned on the following day, at 1.30 a.m. The case of the prosecution is, that the autorikshaw was used by the appellant and the co-accused in commission of the crime. It was imperative for the appellant to have expressly indicated the reasons and justification for not returning the autorikshaw to the garrage of Annamalai – PW9 between 8.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., on the relevant date. Not having done so, by itself, is a cause of suspicion, specially when there is other material evidence, projected by the prosecution, to demonstrate the involvement of the appellant, in the commission of the crime. We are of the view, that the aforesaid evidence recorded by the prosecution was sufficient, even in the absence of last seen evidence, to return a finding of guilt against the appellant. 12. It is imperative for us to record, that in addition to the afore-stated submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel had also contended, that the co-accused was acquitted by the High Court, and that, his acquittal was based on the same evidence, produced through the same witnesses. It was contended, that it was improper and unjustified, for the High Court, to have convicted the appellant, and acquitted the co-accused, on the same evidence. We find no justification in the instant contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel. We have already recorded hereinabove, that the extra judicial confession made to R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, was by the appellant herein, and not by the co-accused. We have also recorded hereinabove, that the recovery of the nose-pin found missing from the nose of the deceased, was at the instance of the appellant, and not at the hands of the co-accused. Therefore, the case of the co-accused, was on a clearly different footing, and there was sufficient justification for the High Court, to have taken a different view, SW in the case of the co-accused. 13.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]We have given our thoughtful consideration to the two submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. Insofar as theconfession is concerned, it is necessary to emphasize, that theial confession over a span of time, in the facts of the present case, was inconsequential. We say so, because the appellant was not a suspect till 21.1.2008. The appellant feared his arrest with reference to the allegations pertaining to the deceased – Jayalakshmi, only when the investigating officer, Arumugam – PW20 affirmed with Shanmugam – PW6 on 21.01.2008, that the appellant had been seen, close to the place of occurrence. It is immediately thereafter, and on the immediately following day, that the appellant made anconfession to R.V. Alagurajan –as the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant with reference to theare concerned, we are of the view, that none of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant, can be accepted as a valid justification, for exculpating the appellant from the charges levelled against him. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that a missing persons report was registered by the father of the deceased – P. Matheswaran, on 7.9.2007. In the missing persons report, it was clearly mentioned, that the deceased was wearing awhen she had gone missing. The reason for indicating, that the deceased was wearing awas with the clear purpose of aiding the identification of his missing daughter – Jayalakshmi. This was obviously for the reason, that the deceased – Jayalakshmi, was mentally unstable, and would not have been in a position to express her identification, or the identification of her parents, or the place of her residence, by herself. In the recovery mahazar dated 22.1.2008, the recoveredwas depicted as being imbedded with four white stones. It is therefore apparent, that theworn by the deceased – Jayalakshmi when she had gone missing, was not any ordinary unidentifiable artifact, but was clearly different from the usualNot only that, the photograph of the deceased submitted along with the missing persons report dated 7.9.2007 shows a clear picture of theand therefore, to say that the involvement of the accused on the basis of thewas improper, is not acceptable. Insofar as the absence of blood, skin tissue and bone tissue on theis concerned, it is clear to us, that the submissions were made by the learned counsel, without having viewed the photograph of the deceased, as is available on the record of the trial Court. As already noticed hereinabove, thewas worn by the deceased – Jayalakshmi, in the photograph attached to the missing persons report dated 7.9.2007. The same was missing from the photograph of the deceased, after her body was recovered. The nose itself was not mutilated, and wasNo injury whatsoever was found on the nose, in the photograph of the deceased. It was therefore wholly unjustified, for the learned counsel for the appellant to have raised the submission, that the absence of any human tissue on thewould lead to the inference, that thein question, was not the one belonging to the deceased. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant contentions, advanced on behalf of thegiven our thoughtful consideration on the above contention, we are of the view, that the judgment relied upon by learned counsel, is wholly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of this case, for two distinguishing features in the present case, namely, that the extra judicial confession in the instant case was made to the Village Administrative Officer R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, who was totally unbiased and unconnected with the controversy in hand. He could also not to be stated to be inimical to the appellant. He is not shown to have any relationship with either the complainant or the accused. Moreover, insofar as the extra judicial confession made in the judgment relied upon by the appellant is concerned, the same had been made by the accused, to the sister of the deceased, which by itself made the extra judicial confession extremely doubtful. We are therefore not impressed with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, based on the citedthe above view of the matter, it was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant, that there was no material evidence available on the record of the case, to return a clear finding of guilt, against the appellant. It was submitted, that the circumstantial evidence projected through the prosecution witnesses, did not complete the chain of circumstances, as would establish the guilt of thehave given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. As noticed hereinabove, there was a clear and categoricconfession made by the appellant to R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 on 22.1.2008. During the course of recording his testimony, R.V. Alagurajan – PW12 was subjected to vigorousHis testimony however remained unshaken. Resultantly, the trial Court, as also, the High Court, concluded that theconfession was genuine. We endorse the above determination at the hands of the trial Court and the High Court. Consequent upon thel confession, the appellant was taken to the police station by R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, and produced before Inspector Arumugam – PW20. It is therefore apparent, that the arrest of the appellant at the behest of R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, has also been clearly established. The next chain in the circumstantial evidence projected at the hands of the prosecution, was the recovery of theon 22.1.2008, based on the statement of the appellant, to Inspector Arumugam – PW20. Then has been identified by the members of the family of the deceased, as the one that was actually worn by the deceased, when she went missing. Since thewas recovered at the instance of the appellant, from a remote place under an electric transformer, no one but the appellant could have been aware of its location. Its recovery was therefore suffient, along with the other evidence referred to above, to clearly implicate the appellant. It is also necessary for us to mention, that there is yet another aspect of the matter, which furthers the cause of the prosecution, namely, the statement of M.Abdul Khader – PW8. In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the appellant used to hire afor earning his livelihood. The aforesaid autorikshaw was hired from the garrage of Annamalai – PW9. M.Abdul Khader – PW8 was engaged as an accountant at the garrage of Annamalai – PW9. It was pointed out in the deposition of M.Abdul Khader – PW8, that on a daily basis thehired by thesed used to be returned to the garrage of Annamalai – PW9 between 8.30 p.m to 9.30 p.m.. However, on the date of occurrence, i.e., the relevant date when the alleged crime was committed, thewas returned on the following day, at 1.30 a.m. The case of the prosecution is, that the autorikshaw was used by the appellant and thein commission of the crime. It was imperative for the appellant to have expressly indicated the reasons and justification for not returning the autorikshaw to the garrage of Annamalai – PW9 between 8.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., on the relevant date. Not having done so, by itself, is a cause of suspicion, specially when there is other material evidence, projected by the prosecution, to demonstrate the involvement of the appellant, in the commission of the crime. We are of the view, that the aforesaid evidence recorded by the prosecution was sufficient, even in the absence of last seen evidence, to return a finding of guilt against theis imperative for us to record, that in addition to thesubmissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel had also contended, that thewas acquitted by the High Court, and that, his acquittal was based on the same evidence, produced through the same witnesses. It was contended, that it was improper and unjustified, for the High Court, to have convicted the appellant, and acquitted theon the same evidence. We find no justification in the instant contention advanced at the hands of the learned counsel. We have already recorded hereinabove, that the extra judicial confession made to R.V. Alagurajan – PW12, was by the appellant herein, and not by theWe have also recorded hereinabove, that the recovery of thefound missing from the nose of the deceased, was at the instance of the appellant, and not at the hands of theTherefore, the case of thewas on a clearly different footing, and there was sufficient justification for the High Court, to have taken a different view, SW in the case of the