9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (4) TMI 1274 - SC - Indian LawsReversal of the finding of the Trial Court - two possible views and the one taken by Trial Court being a possible view - erroneous reversal by High Court while re-appreciating the said evidence - appreciation of evidence in proper manner or the High Court had failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective or not - HELD THAT - Section 27 permits the derivative use of custodial statement in the ordinary course of events. There is no automatic presumption that the custodial statements have been extracted through compulsion. A fact discovered is an information supplied by the Accused in his disclosure statement is a relevant fact and that is only admissible in evidence if something new is discovered or recovered at the instance of the Accused which was not within the knowledge of the police before recording the disclosure statement of the Accused. The statement of an Accused recorded while being in police custody can be split into its components and can be separated from the admissible portions. It is a trite law that in pursuance to a voluntary statement made by the Accused, a fact must be discovered which was in the exclusive knowledge of the Accused alone. In such circumstances, that part of the voluntary statement which leads to the discovery of a new fact which was only in the knowledge of the Accused would become admissible Under Section 27 - Merely because the translation was made from Malayalam to Tamil and written down in Kannada would not suggest that such statement be held to be either not being voluntary or the said statement having been recorded improperly. The interpreter having entered the witness box and tendered himself for cross-examination which resulted in nothing worthwhile having been elicited for discarding his evidence, it cannot be gainsaid by the Accused that said statement at Ex. P-2 is to be ignored or rejected or discarded. Merely because PW-10 did not know how to read and write Malayalam does not ipso facto make the contents of Ex. P-2 to be disbelieved. It is no doubt true that confession of PW-25 in its entirety is not admissible in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. However, in the teeth of Section 8 read with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, that part of the confession which led to the recovery of the dead body of the victim would become admissible, apart from other articles of the deceased recovered at the instance of the Accused has been identified by several witnesses independently. This has also persuaded the High Court to accept the statement recorded under Ex. P-2 as being admissible which cannot be construed as highly improbable. On re-appreciation of entire evidence by the High Court in proper perspective it has resulted in arriving at a right conclusion viz. that Accused alone has committed the murder of the deceased Mr. Jose C. Kafan and there being no other possible view which could be considered as missing in the link of chain of circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that appeal deserves to be dismissed as being devoid of merits. Appeal dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgment of the High Court reversing the finding of the Trial Court is to be set aside on the basis of there being two possible views and the one taken by the Trial Court being a possible view? 2. Whether the judgment of the High Court is erroneous and the findings recorded by the Trial Court have been erroneously reversed by the High Court while re-appreciating the said evidence? 3. Whether the High Court has appreciated the evidence in a proper manner or the High Court had failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective? Summary: Issue 1: Reversal of Trial Court's Judgment by High Court The Supreme Court highlighted that the High Court is justified in reversing the Trial Court's judgment if it finds the judgment to be perverse, meaning contrary to the evidence on record. The High Court can reappraise the evidence and conclusions drawn by the Trial Court. The Supreme Court cited precedents to support this view, including *Murugesan v. State through the Inspector of Police* (2012) and *Gamini Bala Koteswara Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh* (AIR 2010 SC 589). Issue 2: Erroneous Findings and Reversal by High Court The High Court reversed the Trial Court's acquittal by finding that the circumstantial evidence pointed to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The death of Mr. Jose Kafan was confirmed as a homicide through a post-mortem report. The High Court also relied on the "last seen theory" where multiple witnesses testified seeing the accused with the deceased. The accused failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his presence with the deceased, thus failing to discharge the burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Issue 3: Proper Appreciation of Evidence by High Court The High Court found the confession statement of the accused admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as it led to the discovery of the dead body and other material objects. The Supreme Court noted that the confession was recorded with the assistance of an interpreter and found no fault in the procedure. The High Court also considered the recovery of articles belonging to the deceased sold by the accused, which were corroborated by multiple witnesses. The accused's conflicting statements about the deceased's whereabouts further weakened his defense. Conclusion: The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's judgment, finding no material irregularity or error in the reappreciation of evidence. The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's conviction of the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 201, 404, and 419 of the Indian Penal Code was upheld.
|
