Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Muthusamy and Anr.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Harjit Singh Bedi
Judgment Date: 2008-09-10
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Respondents

Muthusamy
Anr.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Shanmugasundaram, S. Thananjayan and V.G. Pragasam

Counsels for Respondents

• V. Ramasubramanian

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Supreme Court criminal appeal concerns the conviction of the accused father and brother of the deceased for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. The Trial Court convicted on the basis of purported extrajudicial confessions and witness statements, but the High Court reversed and acquitted. The prosecution originally alleged throttling and poisoning, though the Forensic Science Laboratory report later showed no poison in the viscera, leading to abandonment of the poisoning claim. The Supreme Court reviewed the High Court’s order, noting that the trial evidence mainly rested on extrajudicial confessions, which witnesses described inconsistently, and several witnesses resiled from statements made during investigation. The Court also highlighted a manipulation in the date of receipt of a report to the Magistrate, with a seal date showing 5.1.1990 instead of 3.1.1990, casting doubt on the prosecution record. After examining these discrepancies and the lack of cogent evidence, the Bench concluded that there was practically no evidence to implicate the appellants, and the High Court’s acquittal did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference. Consequently, the appeal filed by the State was dismissed, leaving the acquittal intact. It is clear that the Court preferred caution in the face of inconsistent testimony and procedural irregularities, upholding the High Court's evaluation.

Provisions of Law Cited

IPC 1860 s. 302 read with s. 34

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that the High Court's analysis directing acquittal cannot be maintained, as it overlooked several relevant factors. The prosecution relied on extrajudicial confessions and witness statements; while the Forensic Science Laboratory report negated the poisoning claim, the State contends that the overall evidence, including the allegedly recorded confessions, should have supported conviction and the High Court erred in acquitting.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contended that the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence, acknowledging that extrajudicial confessions were unreliable, witnesses gave inconsistent versions, and several witnesses resiled from statements during investigation. There was practically no admissible evidence linking the appellants to the crime, and procedural irregularities such as date manipulation undermined the prosecution’s case; thus the acquittal was proper and should be affirmed.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 309 t-+ J ~ _C'f_ ## INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU A _v._ MUTHUSAMY AND ANR. (Criminal Appeal No.655 of 2002) SEPTEMBER 10, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH . BEDI, JJ.] - - _Criminal Trial Conviction by Trial Court Set aside by._ - _High Court On grounds that extra judicial confessions were not reliable; that witnesses resiled from statements made dur-_ c _ing investigation and that there was manipulation in date of receipt of report by Magistrate from police station_ - _Held: In view of these discrepancies, no case made out for interference in the judgment of High Court_ - _Penal Code, 1860_ - _s. 302 rlw s:34._ D '· ' According to the prosecution, the deceased was throttled and poison was also administered to ·him. The accused-Respondents are the father and brother respectively of the deceased. As the report of ForeJ1sic Science Laboratory stated that the viscera of the deceased did E not contain any poison, prosecution later on gave up its stand that the deceased was administered poison. Trial Court relied upon the extra-judicial confessions purport· edly made by the accused-Respondents and accordingly convicted them under s.302 rlw s.34 IPC. On appeal, the High Court directed acquittal. Hence the present appeal.[F ] Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The High Court referred to the extra-judicial confessions and found that they are not reliable. The witnesses gave varying version' about the so called extra· judicial confessions. Apart from that, the persons .who claimed to have witnessed the ·incident resiled from the statemehts made during investigation and there was prac- G H 309 > 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. ---1- A tically 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 B[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, the High Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant any interference. [Para 3] [311-C-E] c CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 655 of 2002 From the JudgmenUOrder dated 30.3.2001 of the. High Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 738 of 1992 D Shanmugasundaram, S. Thananjayan and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellants. ,.., V. Ramasubramanian for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by E Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard. 1. 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 F[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 G[was ][that ][the ][deceased ][was ][throttled ][and ][also ][poison ][was ][ad-] ministered 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 purH[portedly ][some ][extra-judicial ][confessions ][on ][which ][the ][Trial ][Court ] INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU _v._ 311 MUTHUSAMY & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT. J.] · .... .. .., relied. Accordingly, the accused persons were convicted for A offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). In appeal the High Court has, by the impugned judgment, directed acquittal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that B the analysis made by the High Court to direct acquittal cannot be maintained as the High Court lost sight of several relevant factors. 3. We find that the High Court has referred to the extrajudicial confessions and found that they are not reliable. The c witnesses gave varying version about the manner in the socalled 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 D 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. E 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. 4. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. -- 8.8.8. F Appeal dismissed.