2024 (1) TMI 1320 - SC - Indian Laws

Conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC - HELD THAT - Acquittal of the co-accused, as noticed in paragraph 4 above, again is for want of evidence against them. At best, they were found in possession of the articles connected with the crime on the basis of the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-37) dated 25.04.2008 made by the appellant Perumal Raja @ Perumal. Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not have been applied to the other co-accused for the simple reason that the provision pertains to information that distinctly relates to the discovery of a 'fact' that was previously unknown, as opposed to fact already disclosed or known. Once information is given by an accused, the same information cannot be used, even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody. Section 27 of the Evidence Act does apply to joint disclosures, but this is not one such case. Even if Section 8 of the Evidence Act is to apply, it would not have been possible to convict the co-accused. The trial court rightly held other co-accused not guilty. For the same reason, acquittal of co-accused Chella @ Mukundhan, who was earlier absconding, is also of no avail. As far as acquittal of the juvenile is concerned, reference can be made to the provisions of Sections 40 to 43 of the Evidence Act. There are no difficulty in upholding the conviction of the appellant Perumal Raja @ Perumal. The appeal is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Conviction and sentencing of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
2. Evidence based on circumstantial evidence and admissibility under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3. Recovery of body parts and other articles based on the disclosure statement.
4. Superimposition test to ascertain the identity of the deceased.
5. Acquittal of co-accused and its relevance to the appellant's case.
6. Motive for the crime.
7. Legal principles regarding circumstantial evidence and burden of proof.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction and Sentencing of the Appellant:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant for the murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth under Section 302 of the IPC and for causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302, and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 3,000/- for the offence under Section 201.

2. Evidence Based on Circumstantial Evidence and Admissibility Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act:
The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eyewitnesses. The Court emphasized the admissibility of the appellant's disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which led to the discovery of the body parts and other articles. The Court discussed the legal principles governing the admissibility of such evidence, citing precedents like Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru. It was noted that the discovery of a fact resulting in the recovery of a physical object is admissible if it distinctly relates to the information given by the accused.

3. Recovery of Body Parts and Other Articles Based on the Disclosure Statement:
The appellant's disclosure statement (Exhibit P-37) led to the recovery of decomposed body parts of Rajini @ Rajinikanth from a sump tank and a canal/river. The recovery was corroborated by the testimonies of police officers and public witnesses, and documented through photographs and mahazars. The Court found that the body parts recovered were consistent with the appellant's disclosure, thereby affirming the credibility of the evidence.

4. Superimposition Test to Ascertain the Identity of the Deceased:
The identity of the deceased was established through a superimposition test conducted by C. Pushparani (PW-29), a Scientific Assistant from the Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai. The test confirmed that the skull and mandible recovered matched the photographs of Rajini @ Rajinikanth. The Court examined the forensic report and the computer laser printouts, concluding that the findings were justified.

5. Acquittal of Co-Accused and Its Relevance to the Appellant's Case:
The Court noted that the acquittal of the co-accused, including Saravanan @ Krishnan, Mohan @ Mohankumar, and Ravi @ Ravichandran, was due to a lack of evidence against them. The appellant's conviction was based on his own disclosure and the subsequent recovery of evidence, which was not applicable to the co-accused. The Court also discussed the principle that Section 27 of the Evidence Act could not be applied to the co-accused based on the appellant's disclosure.

6. Motive for the Crime:
The motive for the crime was identified as inter-family property disputes and the appellant's desire to acquire the property at No. 13, Chinna Vaikkal Street, Puducherry. The Court found that the motive reinforced the conclusion of the appellant's guilt, as the deceased and his father were obstacles to the appellant's acquisition of the property.

7. Legal Principles Regarding Circumstantial Evidence and Burden of Proof:
The Court reiterated the principles governing circumstantial evidence, citing the five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. The Court emphasized that the chain of evidence must be complete and exclude any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The appellant's failure to provide any explanation for the recovery of the body parts and other articles led to an adverse inference under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, further affirming his guilt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentencing of the appellant. The judgment was based on a thorough analysis of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of the disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the corroborative forensic evidence. The Court found that the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.