Chakarai @ Chakaravarthi vs State Rep By Inspector Of Police

CHAKARAI @ CHAKARAVARTHI Appellant

Versus

STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE Respondent

J U D G M E N T

MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.

We have heard Mr. Jayanth Muthuraj, learned counsel

for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Raja Rajeshwaran,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent –

State.

2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the

common judgment and order dated 16.06.2009 passed by the

High Court of Judicature at Madras in a batch of Criminal

Appeals filed by the accused, confirming the judgment

dated 07.02.2007 passed by the Additional District Judge,

FTC 2, Salem, Tamil Nadu in S.C. No. 5 of 2006 to the

extent that it convicted the appellant/Accused No.1 for

the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code

1 (in short, “the IPC”) and sentenced him to life

imprisonment.

3. The brief facts relating to this appeal are as

under:-

The deceased Ramamurthy was working as a Collection

Agent in New Centurion Bank at Salem. Accused Nos. 1 and

2 had availed vehicle loans from the said Bank to

purchase two motor cycles. However, such loans were not

repaid on time. The deceased Ramamurthy used to

pressurise both the accused to repay the loans. Despite

the same, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 failed to repay the same

and started avoiding him. About six months prior to the

incident in question, the deceased Ramamurthy had taken

away both the vehicles of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 without

informing them, in order to pressurise them to repay

their loans. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 approached the deceased

for the return of these vehicles, but he refused to

oblige, saying that he would return the vehicles only

once they repaid the loans. Accused Nos. 1 and 2 were

inimically disposed towards the deceased Ramamurthy in

that regard. They sought the help of the other accused

and conspired with them to do away with the life of the

deceased Ramamurthy.

On 14.5.2005, Accused No.1, along with the other

2 accused, called the deceased Ramamurthy over phone to the

place of the incident on the pretext of repaying the

loans. The deceased reached the place and immediately

thereafter, all the accused pushed the deceased inside

the Maruti van owned by one of the accused, took him away

and killed him. Thereafter, the dead body was thrown near

the house of an advocate at Salem.

4. On the next day, P.W.18, the Village Administrative

Officer, upon receiving information about an unidentified

dead body, went to the location, saw the dead body and

lodged the first information report.

The Trial Court convicted all the accused, whereas

the High Court retained the conviction of the appellant

herein under Section 302 of the IPC and acquitted all the

other accused persons, as well as the appellant of all

other charges.

5. The case of the prosecution is mainly based on the

extra-judicial confession of the accused. Both P.W.8, who

had allegedly seen the accused abducting the deceased

Ramamurthy, and P.W. 11, who spoke about the alleged

conspiracy, turned hostile. The circumstances relied upon

by the prosecution are as under:-

a) Motive for commission of the offence, as deposed to

by P.W.2.

3

b) Accused were seen abducting the deceased by P.W.8.

c) Conspiracy amongst the accused, deposed to by P.W.11.

d) Recovery of the Maruti van, weapon and the blood

stained clothes of Accused No.1, based on the confession

made by Accused No.1 before the police. The circumstance

of recovery is deposed to by P.W.18.

e) The extra-judicial confession spoken to and recorded

by P.W.12.

It is noteworthy to mention that the High Court has

disbelieved all the circumstances except the extra-

judicial confession.

6. To satisfy our conscience, we have gone through the

entire material. We do not find any reason to disagree

with the High Court, inasmuch as it has rightly concluded

that the circumstances of motive, abduction by accused,

conspiracy and recovery are not proved beyond reasonable

doubt.

As mentioned supra, P.W.8, who had allegedly seen the

abduction, and P.W.11, who initially deposed with respect

to the conspiracy, turned hostile. The High Court has

also rightly disbelieved the aspect on motive inasmuch as

the grievance of Accused Nos. 1 and 2 against the

deceased was six months prior to the incident, to the

degree that the deceased had allegedly taken away the

4 vehicles of the accused without informing them. Though

P.W.2, the mother of the deceased, deposed about the

motive, it is clear that the same had not been disclosed

by her to the police during the investigation.

Additionally, although P.W.18 deposed about the recovery

of certain articles which were blood stained, the

prosecution failed to place the chemical analysis report

on record even though the material objects recovered from

Accused No.1 had been sent for such analysis. Moreover,

though the serological report found that the blood groups

found on the clothes of the deceased and the recovered

material objects tallied, the same cannot be relied upon

since the serial number of the requisition sent does not

tally with that of the report. Therefore, in the absence

of reliable matching of blood groups, the evidence of

P.W.18 loses its importance.

7. Thus, the only remaining circumstance, as rightly

concluded by the High Court, is the extra-judicial

confession.

We have perused the extra-judicial confession (Ext.

P-1) recorded by P.W.12 (the Tahsildar, Salem), the

translation in English of which was provided to us by the

learned counsel for the appellant. The extra-judicial

confession gives us an impression that the same has been

5 generated to make the courts believe the case against the

appellant. The extra-judicial confession is suspiciously

full of facts, and graphically discloses the antecedents

of Accused No.1, the situation of his house and what

happened prior to the incident in question and

thereafter. It is recorded in nearly five full pages, and

not only speaks about the motive to kill, but also gives

graphic details of how each of the accused attacked the

deceased.

In this context, it would be relevant to refer to

certain observations made by this Court in Thangavelu v.

State of Tamil Nadu, (2002) 6 SCC 498. Paragraph 7 of

the judgment is extracted below:-

“At this juncture we may take note of the prosecution case that the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession to PW 12, another VAO on the day following the incident. Though the courts below have not placed any reliance on this confession, we take note of this document for the purpose of appreciating the genuineness of the prosecution case. A perusal of this confession Ext. P-14 gives us an indication of the attempt of the prosecution to build a case against this appellant. This extra-judicial confession is so full of facts starting from about 25 years prior to the date of the incident and graphically details what happened over these years to his sister and his family which actually is the motive suggested by the prosecution for the crime. Ext. P-14 is recorded in nearly 4 full pages, it not only speaks of his motive to kill

6 D-1 and D-2 but also gives graphic details of the nature of the attack on the deceased and also mentions in detail the persons whom he saw during and after the incident. In a manner of speaking, if this confession is true the appellant had the foresight to guess as to who the prosecution witnesses are going to be and gives an impression, therefore, he was seeking to corroborate their future evidence. In our opinion, this would hardly be the natural conduct of an accused if he was voluntarily making a confession. We further notice the unimaginable similarity in Exts. P-14 and P-1 as also in the evidence of PW 1 which supports the theory of the defence that there was an attempt by the prosecution to create evidence in this case.” (emphasis supplied)

The facts of the present case are similar to the

facts of the aforesaid case, in so far as the extra-

judicial confession is concerned. All the observations

made by this Court in the case of Thangavelu (supra) are

aptly applicable to the case on hand. In the said matter,

this Court disbelieved the detailed extra-judicial

confession and acquitted the accused.

8. Hence, we are of the opinion that the extra-judicial

confession placed on record cannot be relied upon.

However, even if the extra-judicial confession is to be

believed, it would be unsafe to convict the accused and

award life imprisonment to him based on the sole

circumstance of an extra-judicial confession, more

7 particularly since all the other circumstances remain

unproved, and since the Investigation Officer and P.W. 12

have not acted impartially, which is evident from the

manner of recording the alleged extra-judicial confession

as discussed supra.

9. In our considered opinion, the High Court was not

justified in convicting the accused based on the sole

circumstance of the extra-judicial confession under the

facts and circumstances of this case.

10. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the High Court

convicting the Accused No.1/Appellant stands set aside.

The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled

against him. He shall be released forthwith, if he is not

required in any other case.

The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

........................J. (MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)

........................J. (DINESH MAHESHWARI)

New Delhi, January 24, 2019

8