SOMASUNDARAM @ SOMU versus STATE REP. BY DY. COMM. OF POLICE
[2016] 7 S.C.R. 263, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Matter referred to larger bench
Segment: Ratio
SOMASUNDARAM @ SOMU v. STATE REP. BY DY. COMM. . 349 
OF POLICE [ARUN MISHRA, J.] 
also does not further the case of the appellants in any way as their guilt 
stands established by other overwhelming evidence. 
55. It was also contended that recovery of Ford car at the instance 
of A-4 is of no value. In my opinion, in whose name car was registered 
is im.naterial as its use in offence and recovery is material aspect. The 
registration of car is in name of Ranj it Kumar who paid money for its 
purchase is a matter inter se between PW-I 0 and Ranjit Kumar. PW-I 0 
may have purchased the car in the name ofRanjit Kumar. However, the 
evidence clearly disclosed that the car was in possession of PW- I 0 and 
was eiven by him to accused. Total six cars were used in offence including 
Ford Escort car and one motorcycle. They were used by one or other 
accu:.ed persons at one or other time while committing offence thus 
which vehicle was used at particular time by which accused would not 
create any circumstance in favour of an accused person when it has 
been proved that various vehicles seized have been used in offence their 
recovery at the instance of accused persons cannot be ignored. 
56. Coming to submission that remains recovered from cremation 
ground are not proved to be of deceased M.K. Balan. As per the case 
of prosecution the body of the deceased was fully burnt as such the 
recovery of certain remains which was made after several months from 
the cremation ground was
of'no utility. Remains would not have been at 
cremation ground after 2 Yi months when everyday bodies are cremated. 
Their seizure and the forensic science report regarding that are of no 
value. 
57. Thus in my opinion the appeals preferred by appellants sans 
merits hence, liable to be dismissed. The appeals are hereby dismissed. 
The (;Onviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court as affirmed by 
the High Court calls for no interference in the appeals. 
K!!lpana K. T~ipat~y 
Matter referred to Three Judges Bench*. 
*In view of divergent opinion in. the separate judgments of the Two Judges Bench. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F