R. Kuppusamy vs State Rep.By Ins.Of Police,Ambeiligai

2. Before we refer to the evidence adduced by the prosecution at the trial in support of the charge framed against the appellant we may briefly recapitulate the factual matrix in which the offence is alleged to have been committed. According to the prosecution the appellant is a resident of Veriappur village of Annamalaiputhur village within the police station limits of Oddanchatram. He got married to one Yuvarani nearly two years before the incident. Within about 10 months of the marriage, the couple was blessed with a female child whom they named Savitha. The prosecution case is that the accused-appellant had developed some suspicion about the birth of the child though it is not very clear whether the suspicion was about the paternity of the child or the child being unlucky for the family. Be that as it may, around the time the incident occurred the appellant is said to have visited his village to perform the mundan ceremony of the child who was just about 10 months old. His parents were not, however, much excited about the mundan ceremony to be followed by the feast. They are alleged to have told the appellant that ever since the child was born, the family was facing problems. The prosecution version further is that since the appellant had already developed a suspicion about the child, he at about 11.00 a.m. on 18th March, 2005 picked up the child and threw her in a well resulting in the child’s death by drowning. After throwing the child into the well the appellant is alleged to have gone to PW-5 Sakthivel, Vice President of Veripur Panchayat Board, and told him that he had thrown his daughter into the well. PW-5 Sakthivel is said to have advised the appellant to go to PW-1 S.K. Natarajan, Village Administrative Officer of Veriappur. The appellant accordingly went to PW-1 S.K. Natarajan and narrated the incident to him. PW-1 S.K. Natarajan is alleged to have recorded the statement made by the appellant and taken the appellant along with him to the police station where the former lodged the first information report regarding the incident and produced the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before the police.

4. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case. The appellant did not choose to lead any evidence in his defence but pleaded innocence and false implication in the statement made by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The trial Court eventually came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the appellant stood proved on the basis of the extra judicial confession made by him before PW-1 S.K. Natarajan, Village Administrative Officer of Veriappur. The Court accordingly pronounced him guilty and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, the appellant preferred Criminal Appeal No.224 of 2005 before the High Court of Madras. The High Court concurred with the view taken by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. In the process, the High Court affirmed the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant had indeed made an extra judicial confession which was, according to the High Court, reliable and provided a safe basis for the Court to hold him guilty. The present appeal assails the correctness of the aforementioned judgments and orders as already noticed above.

18. It is manifest from the above that there is considerable corroborative evidence on record to support the extra judicial confessional statement of the appellant in which the appellant has referred to some kind of suspicion and disagreement between him and his parents regarding the child because of which he threw the child into the well. Suffice it to say that it is not one of those cases where the confessional statement is made to a person whose credibility is suspected nor is it a case where there is no corroboration forthcoming from other evidence on record. On both counts the view taken by the Courts below appears to us to be perfectly justified. The same, therefore, warrants no interference from us under Article 136 of the Constitution.

19. In the result this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.