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

In the academic year of 1995-96 the respondent-accused was studying in the senior first year course of MBBS and the deceased-Navarasu, son of Dr. P.K. Ponnusamy [PW-1], a retired Vice-Chancellor of Madras University, was studying in the junior first year course of MBBS in Raja Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar. The respondent was staying in room no. 319 of KRM hostel and the deceased was staying in room no. 95 in E.1 Malligai Hostel belonging to the same medical college campus. PW-1 returned from his foreign trip on 07.11.1996 and was waiting for the arrival of his son-Navarasu from college to celebrate Diwali which in that relevant year fell on 10.11.96. When Navarasu did not return home till 09.11.1996, PW-1 started enquiring from the friends of his son, available at Madras but no information of his whereabouts could be gathered by the father. PW-1 then on 09.11.1996 rang up the university authorities to find out and ascertain the whereabouts of his son. When he was informed that the college authority found his hostel room locked and when it was broken upon, it was found that his belongings along with a small box were lying in the room but he was not available in the room. The college authorities and the father were of the opinion that Navarasu had not left for Diwali to Madras. PW-1 thereafter rushed to the University on 10.11.96 and made a complaint of missing of his son at about 11.30 p.m. on 10.11.96 which was registered as Crime No. 509 of 1996 [Exhibit-P1]5. While this process was going on and without the knowledge of Annamalai Nagar Police, a torso was recovered at about 8.30 a.m. on 07.11.1996 by G. Boopahty, Inspector of Police, E.5 Pattinapakkam [PW-55], from the PTC Bus Depot at Mandaiveli, Madras based on the information given by Prakash [PW-53], conductor of the bus route NO. 21G. The said recovered torso was sent for post-mortem after inquest. The Annamalai Nagar Police after registering the missing report started investigation and during the course of such investigation gathered materials and also received information from various persons including students of the college pointing the guilt towards the accused, who was also found absconding from the college premises from 12-14.11.1996. On 14.11.1996 the accused surrendered himself before the Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi. The message of his surrender was conveyed to the Annamalai Nagar PS, which got the police custody for five days of the accused from 18.11.1996. On 19.11.1996 at about 1.30 a.m. the accused gave a confessional statement stating that he has put the severed head of the deceased in the boat-canal within the University campus. Pursuant to the said confession, the head was also recovered. Annamalai Nagar PS on 20.11.1996 asked E5. Pattinapakkam PS for sending the records connected with the torso recovered at Madras on the suspicion that it may belong to the severed head of the deceased-Navarasu, which was recovered at the instance of the accused. Dr. K. Ravindran [PW-66] conducted autopsy/post- mortem of the head at 10.00 am on 21.11.1996. On 22.11.1996 a message was received from Villupuram Control Room which was forwarded to Annamalai Nagar PS which mentioned that three human bones femur, tibia and fibula have been recovered at 1.30 a.m. on 21.11.1996 from the sea- shore of Konimedu of Merkanam based on the information given by the concerned Village Administrative Officer-Nagarajan [PW-43]. Post mortem of the limbs were conducted by Dr. Srinivasan [PW-45] and later limbs were sent to PW-66. PW-66 after examining the severed head, the torso and three human bones above mentioned, found that there are scientific materials to hold that they belong to a single individual and also the fact that they belong to deceased-Navasaru. The father of the deceased PW-1 and Thandeeswaran [PW-60], nephew of PW-1, also identified and confirmed that the head and torso are of the deceased. For confirming the said fact, the sample blood of PW-1 and his wife Baby Ponnusamy [mother of Navasaru] was examined by Dr. G.V. Rao [PW-77] at Hyderabad by DNA test. PW-77 compared the tissues taken from the severed head, torso and limbs and on scientific analysis he found that the same gene found in the blood of PW-1 and Baby Ponnusamy were found in the recovered parts of the body and that therefore they should belong to the only missing son of PW-16. The prosecutions version of facts leading to the present case are that on 06.11.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused-John David [first year senior medical student of Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai Nagar] took away Navarasu-deceased [first year junior medical student of Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai Nagar] and subjected him to severe ragging in Room No. 319 of KRM Hostel of the college and when the latter did not subjugate himself to the accused, accused caused head injury to the deceased and when Navarasu-deceased was lying on the ground unconscious, the accused severed his head and limbs with the help of stainless steel knives and removed his gold ring, watch and gold chain and caused his death. After doing such gruesome act and with the intention of hiding the evidence and also to show his alibi he put the head and the gold articles of Navarasu-deceased in a zip bag and threw it into canal water near the hostel and burnt the bloodstained clothes of the deceased in the open terrace of the hostel building and took the torso in a suitcase along with the limbs in a train to Madras and threw the limbs in a river when the train crossed Cuddalore and put the torso in a bus at Tambaram7. On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet against the respondent. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet, charges were framed against the accused- respondent. The prosecution in order to establish the guilt of the accused examined several witnesses and exhibited a number of documents including scientific reports. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances existing against him. After hearing arguments advanced by the parties, the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore by its judgment dated 11.03.1998 convicted the accused. Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore found that there are enough circumstantial evidence and motive on the part of the accused for committing such a crime and held the accused/respondent guilty under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 342 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under sections 302 and 364 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for twenty one months under Section 201 IPC. It was also ordered that the sentences would run consecutively8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial Court, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court entertained the said appeal and heard the counsel appearing for the parties. On conclusion of the arguments, the High Court held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused and accordingly the High Court acquitted the respondent of all the charges vide its judgment and order dated 05.10.2001 by reversing and setting aside the order of conviction passed against the respondent under Sections 302, 201, 364 and 342 IPC.

Court's reasoning:
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