Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu vs Muthusamy & Anr
- SCC(2008) 13 SCC 256
- Neutral2008 INSC 1027
- SCR[2008] 13 SCR 309
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the prosecution's case rests substantially on extra-judicial confessions, and those confessions are found to have inconsistent narratives given by the purported witnesses, such confessions cannot be relied upon to ground a conviction. Where the principal prosecution witnesses resile from statements given during investigation when examined in court, their evidence loses evidentiary weight and cannot form the basis of a conviction in the absence of other cogent and reliable evidence. Manipulation of official records, such as antedating of a Magistrate's receipt of a police report by more than one day from what the actual date-seal on the documents shows, amounts to a discrepancy grave enough to cast doubt on the reliability of the entire prosecution case and may warrant acquittal where the prosecution's narrative depends on such records.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu .... Appellant
Versus
Muthusamy & Anr. .... Respondents
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
Heard.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of acquittal recorded by a
Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The accused persons are the father and
brother respectively of the deceased. The incident purportedly took place on 3.1.1990.
Though the prosecution relied on the evidence of many persons who supposedly witnessed
the occurrence, while deposing in Court, most of them resiled from the statements made
during investigation. The version projected by the prosecution was that the deceased was
throttled and also poison was administered to him. But the report of the Forensic Science
Laboratory stated that the viscera did not contain any poison. The prosecution, therefore,
gave up its stand that the deceased was administered poison by the accused persons.
There were purportedly some extra-judicial confessions on which the Trial Court relied.
Accordingly, the accused persons were convicted for offences punishable under Section
302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). In appeal the 2 High Court has, by the impugned judgment, directed acquittal.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the analysis made by
the High Court to direct acquittal cannot be maintained as the High Court lost sight of
several relevant factors.
We find that the High Court has referred to the extra-judicial confessions
and found that they are not reliable. The witnesses gave varying version about the
manner in the so-called extra-judicial confessions. Apart from that the persons who
claimed to have witnessed the incident resiled from the statements made during
investigation and there was practically no evidence to implicate the accused persons. To
add to other factors, one more significant factor which the High Court has noticed is that
there was manipulation done to show as if the Magistrate had received the report from
Police Station on 3.1.1990. In reality the date of seal found on Exh. P1 and Exh. P9 of the
Court of Keeranoor shows that the date was 5.1.1990. In view of these discrepancies, we
are of the opinion that the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to
warrant any interference. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
.......................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
.......................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI) New Delhi September 10, 2008
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free