Inspector of Police,
Tamil Nadu Vs. Muthusamy & ANR. [2008] INSC 1534 (10 September 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 655 OF 2002
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu .... Appellant Versus Muthusamy & Anr. ....
Respondents
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.
Back
Pages: 1 2
