INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.N. v. PALANISAMY @ SELVAN

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
Judgment Date: 2008-10-01
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal dismissed; the High Court’s acquittal is upheld. The Supreme Court did not overturn the acquittal and thus did not convict the respondent.
Final Disposition: Appeal dismissed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Respondents

Palanisamy @ Selvan

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. Thananjayan
• Revathy Raghavan

Counsels for Respondents

• K. Sarada Devi

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a criminal appeal from the Madras High Court’s acquittal of Palanisamy @ Selvan in a murder case under Section 302 IPC. The trial court convicted Palanisamy on two circumstantial links: (i) PWs 1 and 2 testified that they saw the deceased in the company of the accused around 11 p.m. on the night of 5–6 June 1991, and (ii) an alleged extra-judicial confession made by the accused before PW-3, the village head, on 12 June 1991. On appeal, the High Court held the last-seen testimony unreliable in the dark and disbelieved the extra-judicial confession, directing acquittal. The State (appellant) challenged this acquittal, contending that the evidence, properly appreciated, formed a cogent circumstantial chain sufficient for conviction, and that any infirmities in the confession were outweighed by the overall evidence. The Supreme Court scrutinized the identification by voice under poor lighting, noting there was no evidence the witnesses were closely acquainted with the accused. It also found PW3’s account of the confession to be unsubstantiated. The Court, however, affirmed the High Court’s acquittal and dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the stringent standards for circumstantial proof and the limits of voice identification in darkness.

Provisions of Law Cited

Evidence Act, 1872Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The State contends that the conviction rested on two cogent circumstantial links: (i) the last-seen evidence that the deceased was with the accused around 11 p.m. on 5/6/1991, and (ii) an alleged extra-judicial confession before PW-3 on 12/6/1991. It argues that the High Court erred in discarding the reliability of PWs 1 and 2’s testimony and in rejecting PW3’s extra-judicial confession, asserting that the latter was not tainted by the witness’s position and should be considered. The State maintains that, in a circumstantial case, the evidence must be weighed as a whole and, despite some infirmities, should suffice for conviction beyond reasonable doubt; voice identification in the given dark circumstances, though delicate, can be corroborated by the surrounding circumstances and does not automatically negate guilt.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent’s counsel submits that the High Court correctly evaluated the eyewitness identification given the dark night and the lack of evidence that the witnesses knew the accused well enough to identify him by voice. They contend PW3’s account of the extra-judicial confession is unreliable and not established, and that the entire chain of circumstantial evidence fails to exclude reasonable doubt. Consequently, acquittal is proper and should be affirmed.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 126 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.N. _v._ A PALANISAMY @ SELVAN (Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2003) OCTOBER 1, 2008 B ## [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.] _Evidence Act, 1872_ - _Circumstantial evidence_ - _Conviction under_ s.302 _/PC on the_ basis _of circumstance that wit-_ c nesses _last_ saw _<Jeceased in company of accused before the incident and extra judicial confession made by accused be-_ - _fore the village head Acquittal by High Court _disbelieving evidence of prosecution_ witnesses - _Correctness of_ - _Held:[The ][incident took place at ][night-][ Witnesses claimed ]_ D _[Correct ]_[-] _to have identified accused from his voice but such identification_ was _not possible_ as _there_ was _no evidence to show that witnesses were closely acquainted with the accused_ - _Rea-_ sons _given by High Court to discard evidence of witness re-_ E _infirmity[garding extra judicial confession ]_ - _Penal Code, 1860_ - s.[a/so ] _302_ - _[did not suffer from any ] Extra judicial confession._ The trial court convicted the accused under s.302 IPC on the basis of circumstantial evidence. The first circumF[stance ][was ][that ][PWs1 and 2 ][saw ][the deceased in the ][com-] pany of the accused around 11 O'clock in the night of 5.6.1991 and second was an alleged extra judicial confession made by accused on 12.6.1991 at 9 A.M. before PW-3, the village head. On appeal, the High Court held G[that ][the evidence ][of ][PWs-1 and 2 ][was ][not ][reliable. ][It ][also ] did not accept the extra judicial confession made before PW-3 on the ground that PW-3 was the former President of Village Panchayat Board and being responsible witness ought to have surrendered the accused to police or f1 ·:r \ -\- _Ji_ ;, -~. \ '• H 126 0 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, T.N. _v._ PALANISAMY 127 @SELVAN _l)_ advised him to surrender at the police station immediately A after the extra judicial confession was made before him. The High Court accordingly ordered acquittal. Hence the appeal. _-K_ / Dismissing the appeal, the Court 8 HELD: The High Court found the possibility of identification of the accused, as claimed by PWs1 and 2, an impossibility. Undisputedly it was a dark night. They claimed to have identified the accused from his voice. Though such identification in some cases is possible, in c the instant case, .no evidence was adduced to show that the witnesses were closely acquainted with the accused to even identify him from his voice, that too from a very short replies, purported to have been given. This fact was lost sight of by the trial court. So far as the purported exD tra judicial confession is concerned, the High Court found that the same also has not established through the evidence of PW3. The reasons given by the High Court to discard the evidence of PW3 did not suffer from any infirmity. [Para 4] [128-E,F,G] E CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2003 't From the final Judgment and Order dated 15.3.2001 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 697 of 1992 F _..I_ • S. Thananjayan and Revathy Raghavan for the Appellant. K. Sarada Devi for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by G DR. ARIJIT ASAYAT, J. Heard. The State of Tamil Nadu questions the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of the respondent. Learned Addiitonal H 128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. _'(-i_ A Sessions Judge, Erode had found the respondent guitly of offence punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (in short ,IPC') and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The case at hand rests on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance which was highlighted B[by the prosecution was that Pws. 1 and 2 allegedly saw the ] deceased in the company of the accused around 11 O' clock in the night. The second was an alleged extra judicial confession before PW3 the village head. Though the trial Court placed reliance on these factors to find the accused guilty the High Court c[found the evidence ][of ][Pws. 1 and 2 ][to ][be unreliable so far as ] the claim to have seen accused and the Gleceased together around 11 O'clock in the night. Similarly the High Court found that the so-called extra judicial confession has not been established by PW3. Learned counsel for the appellant-State subD[mitted that the High Court should not have discarded the ] evidencne of Pws 1 and 2 so far as the last seen aspect is concerned. Similarly, the High Court should not have disbelieved PW3 about the alleged extra judicial confession. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of!he High Court. E We find that the High Court has analysed the evidence in great detail and we find that the evidence of Pws 1 and 2 is not truthful so far identification aspect is concerned. Undisputedly it was a dark night. They claimed to have idenUfied them from their voice. Though such· identification in some cases is posF[sible ][in ][the instant case no evidence was adduced to show that ] the witnesses were closely ?Cquainted with the accused to even identify him from his voice, that too from a very short replies, purported to have been given. This fact was lost sight of by the Trial court. The High Court found the possibility of identification G[as claimed by Pws 1 and 2 ][an ][impossibility. So far the pur-] ported extra judicial confession is concerned the High Court found that the same also has not been established through the evidence of PW3. The reasons given by the High Court to discard the evidence of PW3 do not suffer from any infirmity. The High Court after analysing the evidence concluded as follows: H \_ "'· _ii..·_ INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TN. _v._ PALANISAMY 129 @ SELVAN [DR. ARIJIT ASAYAT, J.] , First we analysed the evidence of PW3 to find out whether the prosecution had established that the accused had given the extra judicial confession to him. PW 3 would state that the accused appeared before him on 12.6.1991 around 9.00 a.m. and confessed. The occurence was on 5.6.1991 and Nagarajan was found dead in the early morning on 6.6.1991. PW3 is the former President of the Village Panchayat Board of Kalangapalayam. If really the accused appeared before him and gave the extra judicial confession, then prudence on his part demands that he should have surrendered the accused at the police station. He being responsible witness and on that day not holding any office, nothing prevented him to reduce into writing the extra judicial confession given by the accused. But, he would state that he only advised the accused to go and surrender at the police station for which the accused was not willing. Thereafter, he claims to have advised the accused to surrender in court with the help of a lawyer. These two advises as stated above which was given by PW3 shows without any doubt that he is a man who knows what to be done when an offender appears before him. lnspite of the accused appearing before him, he had not chosen to reduce into writing the extra judicial confession of the accused or produce him at the police sation. On the contrary, he would state that on 12.6.1991 in the night he went to the polcie station and informed the police officer about the extra judicial confession given by the accused. What PW3 was doing right from 9.00 a.m. on 12.6.1991, at which point of time the accused appeared before him and gave the extra judicial confession, till late in the night is a suspicious circumstances which make us to disbelieve his oral evidence.' A B C D E F G The appeal is dismissed. D.G. Appeal dismissed. H