Supreme Court of India
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADUversusJOHN DAVID
- Citation
- 2011 INSC 316
- Decided
- 20 April 2011
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- DALVEER BHANDARI
Holding
The High Court’s acquittal was erroneous; the conviction is restored because the cumulative circumstantial evidence and the admissible confession establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The appellant, Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, appealed the High Court's acquittal of John David, who was charged with the gruesome murder of a medical student whose body was dismembered and disposed of in various locations. The trial court had convicted David under IPC sections 302, 201, 364 and 342 based on strong circumstantial evidence, forensic DNA matches, and a voluntary confessional statement. The High Court reversed the conviction, holding the evidence insufficient. The Supreme Court held that an appellate court may fully re‑appreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal and that the prosecution’s chain of circumstances – motive, last‑seen evidence, suspicious conduct, recovered body parts, and the confession – established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court set aside the acquittal, restored the conviction, and modified the sentence to run concurrently.
Issues considered
- Whether an appellate court can review the entire evidence and set aside an order of acquittal under Sections 378 and 386 of the CrPC.
- Whether the circumstantial evidence presented, including forensic DNA and recovered body parts, is sufficient to sustain conviction under IPC sections 302, 201, 364 and 342.
- Whether the confessional statement made by the accused is voluntary and admissible.
- Whether the alleged procedural irregularities in the investigation can defeat the conviction.
- Whether motive and the ‘last seen alive’ testimony form a necessary link in the chain of circumstances.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 167, s. 31(2), s. 313, s. 378, s. 386
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 342, s. 364
Subjects
circumstantial evidenceappeal against acquittalconfessional statementmotiveforensic DNAraggingmurderIPC 302IPC 201IPC 364IPC 342CrPC
Judgment
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 354
A INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
v.
JOHN DAVID
(Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2002)
APRIL 20, 2011
B
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 201, 364 and 342 -
C Gruesome murder - Dead body cut into different pieces -
PW1 's son was studying for a medical degree and staying in
the college hostel - He was allegedly killed by respondent, a
senior student in the same college - A/legation that
respondent caused head injury to the deceased and when
D deceased was lying on the ground unconscious, the
respondent severed his head and limbs and removed his
gold ring, watch and gold chain - Further a/legation that
thereafter, respondent put the head and the gold articles of
deceased in a zip bag and threw it into canal water near the
E hostel and burnt the bloodstained clothes of the deceased in
the open terrace of the hostel building and took the torso in a
suitcase along with the limbs in a train and threw the limbs in
a river while the train was in transit and put the torso in a bus
- Trial court convicted respondent under ss. 302, 201, 364
F and 342 /PC and sentenced him to life imprisonment - High
Court acquitted the respondent - Justification of - Held: Not
justified - All the witnesses were independent and respectable
eye-witnesses - From the evidence of the witnesses, it was
clear that the respondent nurtured ill feeling against the
deceased as the deceased refused to write the record note
G for respondent; that the deceased was last seen with the
respondent and that the conduct of respondent was very weird
and strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also
produced stinking smell - Skull of deceased was recovered
354
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 355
DAVID
from canal water, and material objects, like, note books of A
deceased, gold chain, blood stained bags, knifes etc. were also
recovered - Also, evidence of three specialist doctors who
categorically stated that the skull, torso and limbs recovered
were of the deceased only - Strong and cogent circumstantial
evidences deduced from the investigation logically and B
rationally point towards the guilt of the respondent - No other
possible or plausible view favouring the respondent -
Conviction of respondent restored.
Appeal -Appeal against acquittal - Power of the appellate
court - Held: While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, C
the appellate Court has no restriction to review and relook the
entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded -
On such review, the appellate Court would consider the
manner in which the evidence was dealt with by the lower Court
- At the same time, if the lower Court's decision is based on D
erroneous views and against the settled position of law, then
such an order of acquittal should be set aside - Further, if the
trial Court has ignored material and relevant facts or misread
such evidence or has ignored scientific documents, then in
such a scenario the appellate court is competent to reverse E
the decision of the trial court.
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of -
Held: Each and every incriminating circumstance must be
clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the F
circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from
which the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is
the guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against
the guilt is possible - In a case depending largely upon
circumstantial evidence, there is always a. danger that G
conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof -
The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the
chain of events have been estafjfished clearly and such
completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a
reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused - There
H
356 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be
true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions.
Investigation/Inquiry - Held: Minor loopholes and
iffegularities in the investigation process cannot form the crux
of the case on which an accused can rely upon to prove his
8
innocence when there are strong circumstantial evidences
deduced from the investigation which logically and rationally
point towards the guilt of the accused.
PW1 's son was a first year junior student in a Medical
C College and was staying in the college hostel.
Respondent was a senior student in the same medical
college and he too was staying in the hostel.
According to the prosecution, respondent took away
0 PW-1 's son (deceased) and subjected him to severe
ragging in the college Hostel and when the latter did not
subjugate himself to the respondent, he caused head
injury to the deceased and when deceased was lying on
the ground unconscious, the respondent severed his
E head and limbs with the help of stainless steel knives and
removed his gold ring, watch and gold chain. It was the
further case of the prosecution that after doing such
gruesome act and with the intention of hiding the
evidence and also to show his alibi, the respondent put
the head and the gold articles of deceased in a zip bag
F and threw it into canal water near the hostel and burnt
the bloodstained clothes of the deceased in the open
terrace of the hostel building and took the torso in a
suitcase along with the limbs in a train to Madras and
threw the limbs in a river when the train crossed
G Cuddalore and put the torso in
a bus.
A torso was recovered by PW-55, Inspector of Police
from the Bus Depot based on the information given by
PW-53, a bus conductor. The respondent gave a
H confessional statement in police custody and pursuant
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 357
DAVID
thereto the severed head of the deceased was recovered. A
Three human bones femur, tibia and fibula were also
recovered from the sea-shore based on the information
given by the PW-43, the concerned Village Administrative
Officer. Post mortem of the limbs were conducted by PW-
45 and later limbs were sent to PW-66. PW-66 after B
examining the severed head, the torso and three human
bones above mentioned, found that they belonged to a
single individual and also the fact that they belong to
decease!!. PW-1 and his nephew PW-60 also identified
and confirmed that the head and torso were of the c
deceased. For confirming the said fact, the sample blood
of PW-1 and his wife [mother of deceased] was examined
by Dr. [PW-77] by DNA test. PW-77 compared the tis_sues
taken from the severed head, torso and timbs and on
scientific analysis he found that the same gene found in D
the blood of PW-1 and his wife were found in the
recovered parts of the body and that therefore they
should belong to the son of PW-1.
The trial court held that there were enough
circumsta,ntial evidence and motive on the part of the E
respondent-accused and held him guilty under Sections
302, 201, 364 and 342 IPC alongwith life imprisonment On
appeal, the High Court acquitted the respondent. Hence
the present appeal.
F
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL:
G
1.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the
appellate Court has no restriction to review and retook
the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal ls
founded. On such review, the appellate Court would
consider the manner in which the evidence was dealt H
358 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A with by the lower Court. At the same time, if the lower
Court's decision is based on erroneous views and
against the settled position of law, then such an order of
acquittal should be set aside. [Para 16] [379-8-C]
1.2. Further, if the trial Court has ignored material and
8
relevant facts or misread such evidence or has ignored
scientific documents, then in such a scenario the
appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of
the· trial court. [Para 17] [379-D]
C . State of U.P. v. Ram Sajivan & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 529:
2009 (16) SCR 154; Sannaia Subba Rao & Ors. vs. State of
A.P. 2008 (17) sec 225: 2008 (11) SCR 243; Sidhartha
Vashisht alias Ma nu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)
6 sec 1: 2010 (4) SCR 103 - relied on.
D
CASE ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
2. The law is well-settled that each and every
incriminating circumstance must b~ clearly established
by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances
E so proved must form a chain of events from which the
only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is the
guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against
the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon
circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that
F conjecture or suspicion may take t.he place of legal proof.
The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances
in the chain of events have been established clearly and
such completed chain of events must be such as to rule
out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the
G accused. Also when the important link goes, the chain of
circumstances gets snapped and the other
circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt
of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The Court
has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the
H suspicion to take the place of legal proof. There is a long
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 359
DAVID
mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' A
and the same divides conjectures from sure
conclusions. [Para 19] [379-G-H; 380-A-C]
State of U.P. v. Rarn Balak & Anr., (2008) 15 SCC 551
- relied on. B
MOTIVE:
3. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged
that accused was in the habit of ragging the junior
students and accustomed in getting his home work done c
by the junior students and that is why when the deceased
did not subjugate himself to the accused, the accused
gathered ill-will against the deceased and therefore, that
was the motive for which the accused killed him. For the
purpose of proving the aforesaid motive of the accused, D
the prosecution placed reliance upon the evidence of
PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-19 and PW-20. PW-3 was the,
Head of the Department of Radiology, Annamalai
University as also part-time Warden of Malligai Hostel of
the University, whereas PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-19 and E
PW-20 were the 1st year students of the college. From the
evidence of the above witnesses and other documents
on records it becomes quite· evident that the record
books of the accused were written by other juniors and
that accused was in the habit of ragging junior students.
The evidence of PWs 19 & 20 also go to prove that the F
accused was looking for deceased frantically in the
morning, which was definitely not for the benefit of the
deceased looking at the background behaviour of the
accused towards deceased, for there is enough evidence
on record to support the case of the prosecution that the G ·
accused was having malice and ill-will against with the
deceased as he had refused to succumb to the ragging
demands of the accused. [Para 23] [383-F-H; 384-A-H;
385-A]
H
360 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 7 S.C.R.
A 4. LAST SEEN ALIVE:
From the evidence of the witnesses it is also clear
that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of
the accused on 06.11.1996 between 12.45 to 2.00 p.m.
and thereafter no one had seen the deceased alive and
8
this fact also supports the case of the prosecution.
Moreover accused admitted in his statement filed during
question U/s 313, Cr.P.C. that he was sitting in the
corridor of Dean's office in the afternoon of 06.11.1996,
which further corroborates the case of prosecution. [Para
C 24] [385-G-H; 386-A]
SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED:
5. The conduct of the accused is the next chain of
D circumstance which is heavily relied upon by the
prosecution for proving the guilt of the accused and for
this it placed reliance on the evidence of Subba @
Vankatesan [PW-28], Vijayarangam ~PW-29], Murali [PW-
35], Senthilkumar [PW-40], Joe Bulgani [PW-41_] and
E Rajmohan [PW-42]. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, the unusual and eccentric conduct of the accused
which is unequivocally told by the witnesses makes the
conduct of the accused highly suspicious and leads to
corroborate the case of the prosecution. [Para 25] [386-
F B-C; 387-E-F]
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND
CONSEQUENTIAL RECOVERIES:
6.1 The accused after surrendering before the Court
G of Judicial Magistrate on 14.11.1996 also gave his
confessional statement [Exhibit-50] on 19.11.1996 in the
presence of [PW-58], Village Administrative Officer,
wherein in very clear terms he admitted his crime as is
presented by the prosecution. Also it has been admitted
H by the Trial Court as also by the High Court that at no
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 361
DAVID
stage of trial there is any allegation of torture of the A
accused in the hands of the police, which clearly proves
that the statement made by the accused on 19.11.1996
was given voluntarily and is an admissible piece of
evidence. The High Court merely on an assume~ basis
held that the confessional statement could not have been B
voluntarily given by the accused without referring to any
particular evidence in support of the said conclusion. The
confession was given by the accused in presence of
[PW-58] and his assistant, who are totally independent
persons. [Para 26] (387-G-H; 388-A-E] c
6.2. Only such information which is found proximate
to the cause of discovery of material objects, alone is
taken as admissible in law and in the present case there
are lot of materials which were recovered at the instance
of such confessional statement made by the accused D
only. [Para 28] (388-H; 389-A]
6.3. At the instance and in pursuance of the said
confessional statement given by the accused, PW-78,
Police Inspector, PW-58, Village Administrative Officer E
and his assistant alongwith other witnesses went to the
south canal of the KRM Hostel at about 7.30 a.m. where
he had thrown the head of the deceased after putting it
in a zip bag and since the water level of the canal was
high,· Fire Service and University Authorities were F
requested to drain the water, which was accordingly
done and in the meantime at about 8.45 a.m. at the
instance of accused only M0-3, a rexine bag, was
recovered which contained two notebooks belonging to
the deceased [MOs 4 & 5]. Thereafter, after producing the G
accused before the Doctors of Govt. Hospital at 10.00 a.m.
as per the directions of the court, the accused took PW-
78 along with other witnesses to Room No. 319 (of KRM
hostel) and from there material objects from 9 to 15 and
29 were recovered which included three knifes, one blue H
362 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A colour small brief case, among others and from Room
No. 32~ and 325 material objects from 30 to 33 were
recovered which included blood stained cement mortar.
At about 4.00 p.m. when the search party returned to the
boat canal, the zip bag [M0-22] containing a severed
B human head was recovered at 4.30 p.m. The severed
head of the deceased was recovered from the specific
place which was indicated and identified by the accused.
The recovery of other material objects at the indication/
instance of the accused- creates/generates enough
c incriminating evidence against him and makes such part
of the confessional statement clearly admissible in
evidence. The fact that the skull found in the water canal
of the university belonged to deceased is proved from the
evidence of PW-66, PW-52 and PW-77. PW-66 in his
evidence stated that the deceased appear to have died
0
because of decapitation of injuries and that the injury is
ante-mortem. The Doctor also opined that a sharp cutting
weapon would have been used for causing injuries. He
further stated in his evidence that severing of head and
removal of the muscles and nerves of limbs could have
E been done by MOs 9 to 11. PW-66 also opined that both
the torso and head belongs to one and the same person.
Also from the evidence of PW-52 (dentist) it is found that
he had given silver filling on the right upper first molar
of the deceased and that he had removed the left upper
F milk tooth and removed the root thereof and the said fact
was also clearly and rightly found in the post mortem
conducted by PW-66 on the head recovered from the
boat-canal. The said fact was also proved from the DNA
test conducted by PW-77. PW-77 had compared the
G tissues taken from the severed head, torso and limbs and
on scientific analysis he has found that the same gene
found in the blood of PW-1 and his wife were found in
the recovered parts of the body and that therefore they
should belong to the only missing son of PW-1. The Trial
H Court relied upon the super-imposition process/test
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 363
DAVID
made by Dr. [PW-65], Assistant Director, Forensic A
Science Department, Madras, who stated in his evidence
that the skull recovered was of PW1 's son. Therefore,
from the evidence of PWs 65 & 66 it becomes amply clear
that the skull recovered from the boat canal is of PW-1 's
son only. [Paras 29, 30] [389-B-H; 390-A-F] B
6.4. On 7.11.1996 at about 6.00 p.m., PW-53, the
conductor of Bus [bearing no. T.B.01-2366] having route
No. 21 G [from Thambaram suburban of Chennai City to
Paris Corner] found a male torso under the last seat of
the bus packed in white blood stained polythene bag C
with red letters [marked as M0-16] and thereafter case
was registered and investigation was started by PW-55,
Inspector of Police. PW-66 conducted autopsy/post-
mortem at 10.00 a.m. on 8.11.1996 and having found that
the deceased had died of decapitation of injuries, he D
opined that the injuries found on the torso and skull were
anti-mortem and the deceased would appear to have died
of decapitation and he further stat~d that the respective
surface of the fifth cervical vertebra of the head were
reciprocally fitting into the corresponding surface of the E
sixth cervical vertebra of the torso and this articulation
was exact in nature and hence he opined that the head
and torso belonged to one· and the same person. The
other limbs of the deceased were recovered by [PW-44],
Sub-Inspector on 21.11.1996 in a pale-coloured with F
yellow, red and green checks in a lungi-like bed-sheet and
along with it was torn polythene bag and a pale cloth
thread. [Paras 32, 33] [390-H; 391-A-EJ
6.5. In the present case there is no direct evidence G
to prove that the accused had himself taken the torso and
limbs of the deceased to Madras and threw the limbs
s.omewhere (while transit to Madras) and also that
accused carried the parcel of torso to Madras and
dropped it in the bus but, there is only circumstantial
evidence. [Para 34] [391-E-FJ H
364 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A 6.6. One of the clinching evidence against the
accused is the two suitcases [MOs 13 & 14). PW-37, the
room mate of the accused, stated in his evidence that the
two suitcases in which the blood of the deceased was
found belong to the accused. He also stated that M0-22,
B which is a bag in which the head of the deceased was
recovered, also belong to the accused. PW-38 also
corroborated the said fact in his evidence. Blood found
in the suitcases matched with the blood of the deceased
which is blood group 'A'. It is also proved from the
c evidence of the students adduced in the case that foul
smell was emanating from the said two suitcases and that
when accused was asked about the said smell, he only
replied that it is because of Biryani, which his mother had
given him. PW-28, auto driver, affirmatively stated that the
accused had taken out those two suitcases with him in
0
his auto rickshaw on 06.11.1996 when he dropped him
at Chidambaram Railway Station. The hostel chowkidar
examined as PW-29 corroborated the said fact. The
students of the hostel, PW-40, PW-41, not only spoke
about the foul smell emanating from the room where
E those suitcases were kept but also of the fact that the
accused had brought those two suitcases with him when
he came back to the hostel on 08.11.1996 morning. These
are indeed circumstantial evidence but all leading to one
conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence of
F killing the deceased. [Para 35) [391-G-H; 392-A-D]
6.7. There are enough circumstantial evidence to hold
that it is none else but the accused who could have
caused the concealment of torso and limbs because it
G was the accused who had severed the head of deceased
as found earlier and, therefore, he must have been in
possession of the torso and limbs, which were also
subsequently recovered and were also proved to be that
of deceased. [Para 36) [392-G-H]
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 365
DAVID
AmitsinghBhikamsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra A
(2007) 2 SCC 310: 2008 (14) SCR 219 - referred to.
7. The prosecution has succeeded in proving its
case on circumstantial evidence. In the present case all
the witnesses are independent and respectable eye-
8
witnesses and they have not been shown to have any axe
to grind against the accused. And from the evidence of
the several witnesses, it is clear that the accused nurtured
ill feeling against th-e deceased as the deceased refused
to write the record note for accused; that the deceased
was last seen with the accused in the afternoon of C
06.11.1996 and he was searching for him very eagerly;
that the conduct of the deceased was very weird and
strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also
produced stinking smell; the recovery of skull from canal
water, material objects, like, note books of deceased, gold D
chain, blood stained bags, knifes etc.,; and also the
evidence of PW-66, PW-65 and PW-77 who have
categorically stated that the skull, torso and limbs
recovered were of the deceased only. [Para 37] [393-A-
D] E
8. It is well-settled proposition of law that the recovery
of crime objects on the basis of information given by the
accused provides a link in the chain of circumstances.
Also failure to explain one of the circumstances would
not be fatal for the prosecution case and cumulative F
effect of all the circumstances is to be seen in such cases.
Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the
wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the
case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the
testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court G
is free to act on it. Hence, minor loopholes and
irregularities in the investigation process cannot form the
crux of the case on which the respondent can rely upon
to prove his innocence when there are strong
circumstantial evidences deduced from the said H
366 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2011] 7 S.C.R.
A investigation which logically and rationally point towards
the guilt of the accused. [Paras 38, 39] [393-E-H; 394-A]
State of Kamataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC
715: 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 359 - relied on.
B 9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
prosecution established its case on the basis of strong
and cogent circumstantial evidence and that on the basis
of the circumstances proved, there cannot be any other
possible or plausible view favouring the accused. The
C view taken by the High Court is totally erroneous and
outcome of misreading and misinterpreting the evidence
on record. The High Court erred in reversing the order
of conviction recorded by the trial Court as the
prosecution has established its case. Accordingly, the
D judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment
and decision of the trial Court is restored but only with
one rider that the sentence awarded shall run
concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the
trial court. While doing so reliance is placed upon sub-
E section (2) of section 31 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. [Paras 40, 41] [394-8-D]
Case Law Reference:
2009 (16) SCR 154 relied on Para 13
F Para 14
2008 (11) SCR 243 relied on
2010 (4) SCR 103 relied on Para 15
2008 (14) SCR 219 relied on Para 20
G 2007 (1) SCR 191 referred to Para 27
1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 359 relied on Para 38
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 384 of 2002.
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 367
DAVID
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.10.2001 of the High A
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 267 of
1998.
S. Thananjayan for the Appellant.
Sushil Kumar, V. Mahana and Aditya for the Respondent 8
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.1. This appeal is
directed against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2001 C
passed by the High Court of Madras whereby the High Court
has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein. The High
Court acquitted the respondent under Sections 302, 364, 201
and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") by
reversing the Judgment and order dated 11.03.1988 rendered
by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in
0
Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997.
2. The facts of this case are very shocking and very
distressing. Murder is committed of a young boy, the only son
of his parents, who at the relevant time was studying for a E
medical degree. The manner in which he was killed and his
dead body was disposed of after cutting· it into different pieces
was very gruesome and ghastly. The person in the dock and
who was accused of the crime was another senior student in
the same campus. F
3. Brief relevant facts leading to the registration of the first
information report and giving rise to the present appeal are
being set out hereunder.
4. In the academic year of 1995-96 the respondent- G
accused was studying in the senior first year course of MBBS
and the deceased-Navarasu, son of Dr. P.K. Ponnusamy [PW-
1], a retired Vice-Chancellor of Madras University, was studying
in the junior first year course of MBBS in Raja Muthiah Medical
College, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar. The H
368 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A respondent was staying in room no. 319 of KRM hostel and the
deceased was staying in room no. 95 in E.1 Malligai Hostel
belonging to the same medical college campus. PW-1 returned
from his foreign trip on 07.11.1996 and was waiting for the
arrival of his son-Navarasu from college to celebrate Diwali
B which in that relevant year fell on 10.11.96. When Navarasu did
not return home till 09.11.1996, PW-1 started enquiring from
the friends of his son, available at Madras but no information
of his whereabouts could be gathered by the father. PW-1 then
on 09.11.1996 rang up the university authorities to find out and
c ascertain the whereabouts of his son. When he was informed
that the college authority found his hostel room locked and when
it was broken upon, it was found that his belongings along with
a small box were lying in the room but he was not available in
the room. The college authorities and the father were of the
opinion that Navarasu had not left for Diwali to Madras. PW-1
0
thereafter rushed to the University on 10.11.96 and made a
complaint of missing of his son a, about 11.30 p.m. on 10.11.96
which was registered as Crime No. 509 of 1996 [Exhibit-P1].
5. While this process was going on and without the
E knowledge of Annamalai Nagar Police, a torso was recovered
at about 8.30 a.m. on 07.11.1996 by G. Boopahty, Inspector
of Police, E.5 Pattinapakkam [PW-55), from the PTC Bus
Depot at Mandaiveli, Madras based on the information given
by Prakash [PW-53], conductor of the bus route NO. 21G. The
F said recovered torso was sent for post-mortem after inquest.
The Annamalai Nagar Police after registering the missing report
started investigation and during the course of such investigation
gathered materials and also received information from various
persons including students of the college pointing the guilt
G towards the accused, who was also found absconding from the
college premises from 12-14.11.1996. On 14.11.1996 the
accused surrendered himself before the Judicial Magistrate,
Mannargudi. The message of his surrender was conveyed to
the Annamalai Nagar PS, which got the police custody for five
days of the accused from 18.11.1996. On 19.11.1996 at about
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 369
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
1.30 a.m. the accused gave a confessional statement stating A
that he has put the severed head of the deceased in the boat-
canal within the University campus. Pursuant to the said
confession, the head was also recovered. Annamalai Nagar PS
on 20.11.1996 asked E5. Pattinapakkam PS for sending the
records connected with the torso recovered at Madras on the B
suspicion that it may belong to the severed head of the
deceased-Navarasu, which was recovered at the instance of
the accused. Dr. K. Ravindran [PW-66] conducted autopsy/
post-mortem of the head at 10.00 am on 21.11.1996. On
22.11.1996 a message was received from Villupuram Control c
Room which was forwarded to Annamalai Nagar PS which
mentioned that three human bones femur, tibia and fibula have
been recovered at 1.30 a.m. on 21.11.1996 from the sea-shore
of Konimedu of Merkanam based on the information given by
the concerned Village Administrative Officer-Nagarajan [PW- D
43]. Postmortem of the limbs were conducted by Dr. Srinivasan
(PW-45] and later limbs were sent to PW-66. PW-66 after
examining the severed head, the torso and three human bones
above mentioned, found that there are scientific materials to
hold that they belong to a single individual and also the fact that E
they belong to deceased-Navasaru. The father of the deceased
PW-1 and Thandeeswaran [PW-60], nephew of PW-1, also
identified and confirmed that the head and torso are of the
deceased. For confirming the said fact, the sample blood of
PW-1 and his wife Baby Ponnusamy [mother of Navasaru] was
examined by Dr. G.V. Rao [PW-77] at Hyderabad by DNA test. F
PW-77 compared the tissues taken from the severed head,
torso and limbs and on scientific analysis he found that the
same gene found in the blood of PW-1 and Baby Ponnusamy
were found in the recovered parts of the body and that therefore
they should belong to the only missing son of PW-1. G
6. The prosecution's version of facts leading to the present
case are that on 06.11.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused-
.John David [first year senior medical student of Muthiah
Medical College, Annamalai Nagar] took away Navarasu-
deceased [first year junior medical student of Muthiah Medical H
370 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A College, Annamalai Nagar] and subjected him to severs ragging
in Room No. 319 of KRM Hostel of the college and when the
latter did not subjugate himself to the accused, accused caused
head injury to the deceased and when Navarasu-deceased was
lying on the ground unconscious, the accused severed his head
B and limbs with the help of stainless steel knives and removed
his gold ring, watch and gold chain and caused his death. After
doing such gruesome act and with the intention of hiding the
evidence and also to show his alibi he put the head and the
gold articles of Navarasu-deceased in a zip bag and threw it
c into canal water near the hostel and burnt the bloodstained
clothes of the deceased in the open terrace of the hostel
building and took the torso in a suitcase along with the limbs
in a train to Madras and threw the limbs in a river when the train
crossed Cuddalore and put the torso in a bus at Tambaram.
D 7. On completion of investigation, the police submitted a
charge sheet against the respondent. On the basis of the
aforesaid charge sheet, charges were framed against the
accused-respondent. The prosecution in order to establish the
guilt of the accused examined several witnesses and exhibited
E a number of documents including scientific reports. Thereafter,
the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the
purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances existing
against him. After hearing arguments advanced by the parties,
the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore by its judgment dated
F 11.03.1998 convicted the accused. Principal Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore found that there are enough circumstantial evidence
and motive on the part of the accused for committing such a
crime and held the accused/respondent guilty under Sections
302, 201, 364 and 342 IPC and convicted and sentenced him
G to undergo imprisonment for life under sections 302 and 364
IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342
IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a
fme of rupees one lakh and in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for twenty one months under Section 201 IPC. It
was also ordered that the sentences would run c::onsecutively.
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 371
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
· 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of A
conviction passed by the trial Court, the respondent herein
preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court
entertained the said appeal and heard the counsel appearing
for the parties. On conclusion of the arguments, the High Court
held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the B
accused and accordingly the High Court acquitted the
respondent of all the charges vide its judgment and order dated
05.10.2001 by reversing and setting aside the order cf
conviction passed against the respondent under Sections 302,
201, 364 and 342 IPC. C
9. We may now at this stage refer to the arguments of the
counsel of the parties in order to understand the scope and
ambit of the appeal and also to appreciate the contentions so
as to enable us to arrive at a well-considered findings and
conclusions. D
10. Mr. S. Thananjayan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State emphatically argued before us that the
decision of the High Court of acquitting the accused person is
totally erroneous and suffers from serious infirmities. He also E
submitted that the prosecution has proved the case to the hilt
and that a compete and well-connected chain of circumstantial
evidences have been established to prove the guilt of the
accused. He also submitted that the prosecution has
established the case against the accused beyond reasonable F
doubt. It was also submitted that the motive of the accused to
cause bodily injury to the deceased has also been proved and
that the evidence on record clearly establish that on 06.11.1996
the deceased was in the company of the accused and that
thereafter, deceased could not be found and that the G
confessional statement of the accused leading to the discovery
of head of the deceased in the canal is a clinching
circumstance to connect the accused with the offence. He also
contended and relied upon the fact that the accused absconded
from the hostel for several days and thereafter surrendered H
372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
,ti. before the Court which would serve as an additional link in the
chain of circumstances to prove the charges levelled against
him. He also submitted that the High Court was not justified in
setting aside the order of conviction, for what the High Court
had found proved was only a plausible or possible view and
B version, which did not find favour with the trial Court. He also
submitted that the High Court was not justified in disbelieving
the recording of confession merely because of the omission to
mention the same in the case diary. It was also submitted that
the High Court was not justified in disbelieving the recovery
c merely because there was contradiction with regard to timing
of recovery. He further submitted that the High Court erroneously
disbelieved the case of the prosecution that the torso could be
carried in M0-13 - Suit Case which is 21 inches as according
to Exhibit P52 mahazar - the length of M0-13 is 21 inches and
diameter is 24 inches and therefore, the torso could not have
0
been parceled in the suit case M0-13. He also took us through
the evidence on record in support of his contention that the High
Court committed an error in acquitting the respondent solely on
the ground that it is hazardous to convict the accused on the
basis of the evidence placed by the prosecution. He submitted
E that in the present case all the witnesses produced are of
respectable status and are independent witnesses and they do
not have any axe to grind against the accused and, therefore,
the High Court committed an error in disbelieving the evidence
on record.
F
11. On the other hand, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior
counsel appearing o.n behalf of the respondent-accused very
painstakingly drew our attention to various aspects of the case,
which according to him demolish the very substratum of the
G prosecution case. He also heayily relied upon the fact, by
making submission, that there-are no eye-witnesses and no
direct evidence regarding commission of the crime by the
respondent. He submitted that there are no materials to show
that the respondent took the deceased to room No. 319 [room
H of the accused] and killed hir;t1 there. He further submitted that
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 373
DAVID (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
as no blood was recovered from the room No. 319 and that A
the two roommates of the respondent, viz., Raja Chidambaram
[PW-37] & Shagir Thabris [PW-38] have not stated that they
smelled any blood or saw any blood stains in the room, it
definitely belies prosecution case that murder was committed
in the said room of the hostel. Further submission was that PWs B
37 & 38 admitted that the three knives [i.e., MOSS 9 to 11] were
used for cutting fruits and that PW 37 further admitted that
during the time of interrogation police neither showed the
articles seized from the room of accused nor asked him to
identify the said articles. The counsel for the respondent further c
submitted that there is no evidence to prove that the accused
proceeded to Madras on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. from
Chidambaram railway station, albeit he submitted that accused
took train at Chidambaram on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. bound
for Tiruchirapalli to go to his native place, Karur and returned D
from Karur on 8th morning. Counsel stated that accused took
his briefcase [M0-13] along with him and that M0-14 belongs
to Raja Chidambaram [PW-37] and after meeting his parents
on 7.11.96, the accused returned to Chidambaram hostel on
the morning of 8.11.96 and he was in the hostel from 9-
11.11.96. On the night of 10.11.96 his mother and his cousin E
brother had arrived at Chidambaram and stayed in Saradha
Ram Hotel and they left on 11.11.96 Noon. Counsel for the
respondent further submitted that the non-examination of the
Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the university though they have
been cited in the charge sheet as witnesses is fatal to the F
prosecution case. Next submission was that the chain of events
to prove the guilt of the accused has many loopholes in it.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent also submitted that
the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused as
circumstances alleged by the prosecution have not been G
proved. It was also his submission that this being an appeal
against acquittal, It is to be ascertained very carefully whether
the view taken by the High Court is a plausible or possible view
and that if the order of acquittal is one of the possible view, the
same deserves deference rather than interference by the H
374 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A appellate court. He also submitted that the trial court was wrong
in holding the respondent guilty for evidence adduced by the
prosecution to prove that the deceased was last seen with the
accused replete with inherent improbabilities and
inconsistencies.
B LEGAL POSITION:-
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITI AL
12. Before we enter into the merit of the case, we are
c required to deal with the contention of the counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent regarding the scope and ambit of
an APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITIAL. Various decisions of this
Court have dealt with the issue very extensively. Therefore, it
would be suffice, if we extract few decisions of this Court laying
o down the law in this regard.
13. In the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Sajivan & Ors.
reported at (2010) 1 SCC 529, one of us (Bhandari, J.) detailed
the law in this regard as follows: -
E "46 .................. This Court would ordinarily be slow in
interfering in order of acquittal. The scope of the powers
of the appellate court in an appeal is well settled. The
powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal
are no less than in an appeal against conviction.
F
G
In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka this Court held:
(SCC p. 432, para 42)
"(1) An appellate courthas full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
H order of acquittal is founded.
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 375
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no A
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power
and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, 'substantial and
8
compelling reasons', 'good and sufficient grounds', 'very
strong circumstances', 'distorted conclusions', 'glaring
mistakes', etc. are not intended to curtail extensive powers
of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of 'flourishes of C
language' to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate
court to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of
the court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, m_ust-bear in mind that in D
case of acquittal, there is double presumption in favour of
the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence is
available to him under the fundamental principle of criminal
jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed to be
innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent court E
of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his acquittal,
the presumption of his innocence is further reinforced,
reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on the basis F
of the evidence on record, the appellate court should not
disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.•
G
In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., one of us (Bhandari, J.)
summarised the legal position as follows in paras 69 and
70: (SCC p. 477) . H
376 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A "69. The following principles emerge from the cases
above:
1. The appellate court may review the evidence in
appeals against acquittal under Sections 378 and
386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. Its
B
power of reviewing evidence is wide and the
appellate court can reappreciate the entire
evidence on record. It can review the trial court's
conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
c 2. The accused is presumed innocent until proven
guilty. The accused possessed this presumption
when he was before the trial court. The trial court's
acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is
innocent.
D
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be
given to the trial court's decision. This is especially
true when a witness' credihility is at issue. It is not
enough for the High Court to take a different view
of the evidence. There must also be substantial
E
and compelling reasons for holding that the trial
court was wrong.
In a recently delivered judgment of this Court in State of
U.P. v. Banne, one of us (Bhandari, J.) summarised the
F entire legal position and observed that this·Court would be
justified in interfering in the judgment of the High Court in
the following circumstances which are illustrative and not
exhaustive: (SCC p. 286, para 28)
G
"(i) The High Court's decision is based on totally
erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal
position;
(ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to
evidence and documents on record;
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 377
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
(iii} The entire approach of the High Court in dealing A
with the evidence was patently illegal leading to
grave miscarriage of justice;
(iv} The High Court's judgment is manifestly unjust
and unreasonable based on erroneous law and
facts on the record of the case; B
(v} This Court must always give proper weight and
consideration to the findings of the High Court;
(vi} This Court would be extremely reluctant in c
interfering with a case when both the Sessions
Court and the High Court have recorded an order
of acquittal."
This Court would be justified in interfering with the judgment
of acquittal of the High Court only when there are very D
substantial and compelling reasons to discard the High
Court decision. When we apply the test laid down by this
Court repeatedly in a large number of cases, the
irresistible conclusion is that the High Court· in the
impugned judgment has not correctly followed the legal E
position."
14. In another decision of this Court in the case of Sannaia
Subba Rao & Ors. Vs. State of A.P. reported at 2008 (17}
sec 225, one of us, has referred to and quoted with approval F
the general principles while dealing with an appeal against
acquittal, wherein, it was clearly mentioned that; the appellate
court has full power to review, relock and re-appreciate the
entire evidence based on which the order of acquittal is
founded; further it was also accepted that the Code of Criminal
Procedure puts no limitation or restriction on tile appellate court G
to reach its own conclusion based on the evidence before it.
15. In the case of Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma
v. State (NCT of Delhi) reported at (2010} 6 sec 1 this court
held as follows: - H
378 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A "27. The following principles have to be kept in mind by
the appellate court while dealing with appeals, particularly
against an order of acquittal:
(i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate court
to review the evidence upon which the order of acquittal
B is founded.
(ii) The appellate court in an appeal against acquittal can
review the entire evidence and come to its own
conclusions.
c
(iii) The appellate court can also review the trial court's
conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
(iv) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State,
it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire
D evidence on record and by giving cogent and adequate
reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal.
(v) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when
there are "compelling and substantial reasons" for doing
E so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling
reason for interference.
(vi) While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate
court is first required to seek an answer to the question
whether findings of the trial court are palpably wrong,
F manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the
appellate court answers the above question in the negative
the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed. Conversely, if
the appellate court holds, for reasons to be recorded, that
the order of acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of
G any of the above infirmities, it can reappraise the evidence
to arrive at its own conclusion.
(vii) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has ignored material
H documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic experts,
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 379
DAVID (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
etc. the appellate court is competent to reverse the A
decision of the trial court depending on the materials
placed."
16. Therefore, one of the settled position of law as to how
the Court should deal with an appeal against acquittal is that, B
while dealing with such an appeal, the appellate Court has no
restriction to review and relook the entire evidence on which
the order of acquittal is founded. On such review, the appellate
Court would consider the manner in which the evidence was
dealt with by the lower Court. At the same time, if the lower C
Court's decision is based on erroneous views and against the
settled position of law, then such an order of acquittal should
be set aside. ·
17. Another settled position is that, if the trial Court has
ignored material and relevant facts or misread such evidence D
or has ignored scientific documents, then in such a scenario
the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the
trial court.
18. Therefore keeping in mind the aforesaid broad E
principles of the settled position of law, we would proceed to
analyse the evidence that is adduced and come to the
conclusion whether the decision of the High Court should be
upheld or reversed.
CASE ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE F
19. The principle for basing a conviction on the edifice of
circumstantial evidence has also been indicated in a number
of decisions of this Court and the law is well-settled that each
and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly G
established by reliable and clinching evidence and the
circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from
which the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is the
guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against the
guilt is possible. This Court has clearly sounded a note of H
380 · SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A caution that in a case depending largely upon circumstantial
evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion
may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy itself
that various circumstances in the chain of events have been
established clearly and such completed chain of events must
B be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence
of the accused. It has also been indicated that when the
important link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped
and the other circumstances cannot in any manner, establish
the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has
c been held that the Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger
of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof. It has
been indicated by this Court that there is a long mental distance
be.tween- 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides
conjectures from sure conclusions.
D 20. This Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Balak
& Anr., reported at (2008) 15 SCC 551 had dealt with the whole
law relating to circumstantial evidence in the following terms: -
"11. It has been consistently laid down by this Court that
E where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence,
the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the
incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be
incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt
of any other person. (See Hukam Singh v. State of
Rajasthan, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad, Earabhadrappa
F
v. State of Kamataka, State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi, Balwinder
Singh v. State of Punjab and Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v.
State of M.P.) The circumstances from which an inference
as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved
beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be
.G closely connected with the principal fact sought to be
inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat Ram v. State
of Punjab it was laid down that where the case depends
upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances the
cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 381
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
negative the innocence of the accused and bring home the A
offences beyond any reasonable doubt.
We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court
in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. wherein it has been
observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21)
B
'21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled
law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such
circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all
the circumstances should be complete and there should c
be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis
of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence.'
11. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. it was laid D
down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence,
such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (SCC
pp. 710-11, para 10)
'(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is E
sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
F
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a
chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime was
committed by the accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain G
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation
of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused
and such evidence should not only be consistent with the
guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his
innocence.' H
382 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A '10 .... It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in
the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so
established should be consistent only with the hypothesis
B of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a
chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any
c reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show
that within all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.'
16. A reference may be made to a later decision in
D Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra.
Therein, while dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has
been held that the onus was on the prosecution to prove
that the chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in
prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The
E conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before
conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, must
be fully established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para 153)
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances
F concerned 'must' or 'should' and not 'may be' established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
G except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
H the one to be proved; and
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 383
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not A
to. leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused."
B
These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v.
Raja Ram, at SCC pp. 187-90, paras 9-16 and State of
Haryana v. Jagbir Singh."
21. In the light of the above principle we proceed to
ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to establish C
a chain of circumstances so as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion that the allegations brought against
the respondent are sufficiently proved and established.
MOTIVE D
22. In the present case, in the chain of events, the first point
which arises for our consideration is the MOTIVE behind the
alleged crime done by the accused-John David. The
prosecution has alleged that accused was in the habit of
ragging the junior students and accustomed in getting his home E
work done by the junior students and that is why when the
deceased did not subjugate himself to the accused, the
accused gathered ill-will against the deceased and therefore,
that was the motive for which the accused killed him.
F
23. For the purpose of proving the aforesaid motive of the
accused the prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence
of Dr. R. Sampath [PW-3], Karthikeyan [PW-4], Praveen Kumar
[PW-5] and Subhash [PW-6], V. Balaji [PW-19] and
Ramaswamy [PW-20]. Dr. R. Sampath [PW-3], who is the Head G
of the Department of Radiology, Annamalai University as also
part-time Warden of Malligai Hostel of the University, who in
his deposition has stated that on 19.11.1996 at about 8.30 p.m.
he had witnessed the junior students standing in front of the
Hostel in a row in front of the seniors, including the accused- H
384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A John David. Thereafter PW-3 made enquiries on the incident
and submitted a report about the incident of ragging to the
higher officials which is marked as Exhibit P-3. Karthikeyan
[PW-4), 1st year junior student of the college, stated that on
06.11.1996 accused-John David along with one Kumaran
B came to Hostel and forced him to purchase the tickets of
Engineering Cultural Programme, which they purchased with
hesitation and this fact was also witnessed by the Warden and
Deputy Warden. Along with PW-4, Praveen Kumar [PW-5) and
Subhash [PW-6), both 1st year students of the college, stated
c in their evidence that they have written record work for the
accused-John David under compulsion and with the fear of
being ragged. V. Balaji [PW-19), 1st year student of college,
stated in his evidence that the accused-John David along with
Kumaran forced them to purchase the tickets for the Cultural
D Programme and also made them to stand and that Warden,
Dean and Deputy Warden got the students released from such
ragging. Ramaswamy [PW-20), 1~t year student of the college,
stated in his evidence that accused-John David used to come
to hostel for ragging and to get the record work completed after
ragging. PW-19 further stated that on 06.11.1996, after finishing
E his viva-voce test at about 11.30 a.m. when he returned, the
accused came to his room between 11.30 a.m. to 12 Noon and
asked him about the deceased-Navarasu. PW-20 also stated
that when he was returning after finishing his viva-voce test, the
accused on 06.11.1996 at about 12 Noon asked him about the
F completion of the test of Navarasu. From the evidence of the
above witnesses and other documents on records it becomes
quite evident that the record books of the accused were written
by other juniors and that accused was in the habit of ragging
junior students. The evidence of PWs 19 & 20 also go to prove
G that the accused was looking for Navarasu frantically in the
morning, which was definitely not for the benefit of the deceased
looking at the background behaviour of the accused towards
deceased, for there is enough evidence on record to support
the case of the prosecution that the accused was having malice
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 385
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
and ill-will against with the deceased as he had refused to A
succumb to the ragging demands of the accused.
LAST SEEN ALIVE
24. In the chain of events, the second point which arises
for our consideration is the LAST SEEN evidence of deceased 8
with the accused. For proving the said fact that the deceased
was last seen alive in the company of the deceased, the
prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence of V. Balaji
[PW-19] and Ramaswamy [PW-20], G.M. Nandhakumar [PW-
21], R. Mohamed Shakir [PW-22], R. Saravanan [PW-23) and C
T. Arun Kumar [PW-25). PWs 21 and 22, 1st year students of
the college, stated in their evidence that when t~ey were
returning from the college at about 12.45 p.m. on 06.l1.1996
they saw the deceased and accused together and accused
stopped Navarasu and asked them to leave from there and D
thereafter they had not seen Navarasu alive. PW-23, Laboratory
Attendant of the college, stated in his evidence that he saw both
accused and deceased in conversation with each other on
06.11.1996 at about 12.45 or 1.00 p.m. in front of Dean's office.
PW-25, 2nd year college student, stated that he also saw both E
accused and deceased together at about 2.00 p.m. on
06.11.1996. From the evidence of Dr. Sethupathy [PW-7), Mrs.
Alphonsa [PW-8], Prof. Gunasekaran [PW-10) and V. Balaji
[PW-19) it also comes out that till the afternoon of 06.11.1996
deceased attended the lectures but after meeting with the F
accused he did not appear in the lecture/test on the same day
and was also absent thereafter from lectures/tests.
Ramaswamy [PW-20) also categorically stated that after the
viva-voce test held on 06.11.1996, he did not see the deceased
alive. From the evidence of all the abovesaid witnesses it is G
also clear that the deceased was last seen alive in the company
. of the accused on 06.11.1996 between 12.45 to 2.00 p.m. and
thereafter no one had seen the deceased alive and this fact
also supports the case of the prosecution. Moreover accused
admitted in his statement filed during question U/s 313, Cr.P.C. H
386 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 7 S.C.R.
A that he was sitting in the corridor of Dean's office in the
afternoon of 06.11.1996, which further corroborates the case
of prosecution.
SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED
B 25. The conduct of the accused is the next chain of
circumstance which is heavily relied upon by the prosecution
for proving the guilt of the accused and for this it placed reliance
on the evidence of Subba @ Vankatesan [PW-28],
Vijayarangam [PW-29], Murali [PW-35], Senthilkumar [PW-40),
C Joe Bulgani [PW-41] and Rajmohan [PW-42]. PW-28, auto
driver, stated in his evidence that on 06.11.1996 at about 8.00
p.m. accused took his auto to the hostel from where the
accused went to Chidambaram railway station along with two
suitcases. PW-29, Watchman of KRM Hostel, stated in his
D evidence that on 06.11.1996 at 8.15 p.m. accused came to
hostel in an auto and brought two bags inside the hostel and
left in auto immediately thereafter and that the accused returned
with the two suitcases at 4.00 a.m. on 8.11.1996. PW-40,
student of the college stated that on 08.11.1996 at 4.30 a.m.
E he saw the accused sleeping in the varanda of Room No. 319
with two suitca~es nearby because the accused did not have
the room keys, as the accused's roommate took away the keys
and, when PW-40 offered the accused to come and stay in his
room, at about 5.30 a.m. the accused came to his room and
F kept a suitcase, i.e., M0-14 and went to sleep in the room of
PW-41 along with M0-13. When PWs 40 & 41 came from
mess at about 8.30 a.m. PW-41 complaint about foul smell
coming from his room [Room No. 325]. Thereafter, accused
took the M0-13 from the room at about 12.30 p.m. This
statement of PW-40 was also supported by the statement of
G PW-41. PW-42, student of the college, stated that on 8.11.1996
at 12.30 p.m. accused was sleeping in Room No. 325 and that
on 9.11.1996 accused along with one other student went to 'B'
Mess for lunch but accused did not take the lunch on the ground
that his stomach is not alright and on return he saw accused
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 387
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
keeping his hand on the wall with sad look on his face. He A
further stated that when he entered in the room of the accused
[Room No. 319] he smelt foul smell and on asking about the
same from the accused, the accused replied that it is of the
Biriyani which was given to him by his mother. Later at 4.30
p.m. the accused asked PW-42 to drop him at the B
Chidambaram Railway Station as he wanted to go to his native
place and thereafter he dropped the accused along with a
briefcase at the Railway Station on the bike of one Rangarajan.
PW-42 also purchased a train ticket for Tanjavur for the
accused. PW-42 also stated that on 10.11.1996 he saw c
accused standing before Room No. 319 and on asking the
accused told that he went upto Trichy and returned back. PW-
35, Receptionist of Hotel Saradharam, Chidambaram stated
that on 10.11.1996 at about 8.10 p.m. accused stayed in the
hotel along with one Dr. Esthar and they vacated the room at D
3.15 a.m. on 12.11.1996. The accused on 14.11.1996
surrendered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mannarkudi and
was remanded to judicial custody till 18.11.1996. On
18.11.1996 the Court ordered for five days police custody of
the accused on the condition that the accused should be
produced before a Doctor in the Government Hospital, E
Chidambaram at 10.00 a.m. daily for medical check up. The
above said unusual and eccentric conduct of the accused which
is unequivocally told by the witnesses makes the conduct of the
accused highly suspicious and leads to corroborate the case
of the prosecution. F
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND
CONSEQUENTIAL RECOVERIES.
26. In the present case, as stated supra, PW-1, father of G
the deceased, filed a report with the police for missing of his
son on 10.11.1996 which was registered as Crime No. 509 of
1996 [Exhibit-P1]. In the present case the accused after
surrendering before the Court of Judicial Magistrate,
Mannarkudi on 14.11.1996 also gave his confessional
H
388 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A statement [Exhibit-50] on 19.11.1996 in the presence of
Rajaraman [PW-58), Village Administrative Officer for the non-
municipal area of Chidambaram, wherein in very clear terms
he admitted his crime as is presented by the prosecution. After
the surrender of the accused on 14.11.1996 he was lodged in
B the Central Prison at Tiruchi. Prosecuting agency in Crime No.
509/96 filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate,
Chidambaram for the police custody of the accused U/s 167
of Cr. P.C., which was allowed by the Court for five days from
18.11.1996 on the condition that the accused should be
c produced before a Doctor in the Government Hospital,
Chidambaram at 10.00 a.m. daily for medical check up and at
1.30 a.m. On 19.11.1996 the accused made a voluntary
confession as stated hereinabove. Also it has been admitted
by the Trial Court as also by the High Court that at no stage of
trial there is any allegation of torture of the accused in the hands
0
of the police, which clearly proves that the statement made by
the accused on 19.11.1996 was given voluntarily and is an
admissible piece of evidence. The High Court merely on an
assumed basis held that the confessional statement could not
have been voluntarily given by the accused without referring to
E any particular evidence in support of the said conclusion. The
confession was given by the accused in presence of Rajaraman
[PW-58), Village Administrative Officer; Mr. Subramanian
[assistant of PW-58), who are totally independent persons.
F 27. In the case of Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State
of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 2 SCC 310 this Court had
said that, when on the basis of information given by the accused
there is a recovery of an object of crime which provides a link
in the chain of circumstances, then such information leading to
G the discovery of object is admissible.
28. We may atthis stage, would like to state the proposition
of law that only such information which is found proximate to
the cause of discovery of material objects, alone is taken as
admissible in law and in the present case there are lot of
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 389
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
materials which were recovered at the instance of such A
confessional statement made by the accused only. We may
detail out such material findings in this case.
29. At the instance and in pursuance of the said
confessional statement given by the accused PW-78, Police B
Inspector, Annamalai Nagar; Rajaraman [PW-58), Village
Administrative Officer; Mr. Subramanian (assistant of PW-58]
along with other witnesses went to the south canal of the KRM
Hostel at about 7.30 a.m. where he had thrown the head of the
deceased after putting it in a zip bag and since the water level c
of the canal was high, Fire Service and University Authorities
were requested to drain the water, which was accordingly done
and in the meantime at about 8.45 a.m. at the instance of
accused only M0-3, a rexine bag, was recovered which
contained two notebooks belonging to the deceased [MOs 4 D
& 5). Thereafter, after producing the accused before the
Doctors of Govt. Hospital at 10.00 a.m. as per the directions
of the cou'rt, the accused, took PW-78 along with other
witnesses to Room No. 319 and from there material objects
from 9 to 15 and 29 were recovered which included three
knifes, one blue colour small brief case, among others and from E
Room No. 323 and 325 material objects from 30 to 33 were
recovered which included blood stained cement mortar. At
about 4.00 p.m. when the search party returned to the boat
canal, the zip bag [M0-22) containing a severed human head
was recovered at 4.30 p.m. In the instant case the fact that the F
severed head of the deceased-Navarasu was recovered from
the specific place which was indicated and identified by the
accused. The recovery of· other material objects at the
indication/instance of the accused creates/generates enough
incriminating evidence against him and makes such part of the G
confessional statement clearly admissible in evidence. The fact
that the skull found in the water canal of the university belonged
to Navarasu-deceased is proved from the evidence of Dr.
Ravindran [PW-66), Dr. Venkataraman, [PW-52) and G.V. Rao
[PW-77). PW-66 in his evidence has stated that the deceased H
390 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 7 S.C.R.
A appear to have died because of decapitation of injuries and
that-the injury is ante-mortem;:The Doctor also opined that a
sharp cutting weapon would have been used 'for causing
injuries. He further stated in his evidence that severing of head
and removal of the muscles and nerves of limbs could have
B been done by MOs 9 to 11. PW-66 also opined that both the
torso and head belongs to one and the same person. Also from
the evidence of Dr. Venkataraman, [PW-52) Parasu Dental
Clinic, Adyar, Madras it is found that hehad given silver filling
on the right upper first molar of the deceased and that he had
c removed the left upper milk tooth and removed the root thereof
and the said fact was also clearly and rightly found in the post
mortem conducted by PW-66 on the head recovered from the
boat-canal. The said fact was also proved from the DNA test
conducted by PW-77. PW-77 had compared the tissues taken
D from the severed head, torso and limbs and on scientific
analysis he has found that the same gene found in the blood
.
of PW~1 and
- . Baby Ponnusamy
_. .
were found
- in the recovered
~ .
parts of the body and that therefore they should belong to the
only missing son of PW-1.
E 30. In the present case Trial Court relied upon the super-
imposition process/test made by Dr. Jayaprakash [PW-65],
Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, Madras, who
stated in his evidence that the skull recovered was of Navarasu.
Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 65 & 66 it becomes amply
F clear that the skull recovered from the boat canal is of Navarasu
only.
31. Now, so far as the recovery of limbs and torso of the
deceased-Navarasu is concerned, we would like to detail the
G recovery of the same, their identification and also their relation
insofar as the confessional statement made by accused is
concerned.
32. On 7.11.1996 at about 6.00 p.m. Prakash [PW-53] the
conductor of Bus [bearing no. T.B.01-2366] having route No.
H 21G [from Thambaram suburban of Chennai City to Paris
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 391
DAVID· [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
Corner] found a male torso under the last seat of the bus A
packed 'in white blood stained· polythene lfag with red letfers
[marked as M0-16] and thereafter Crime ·No. 1544 of 199?
1
case was registered and investigation was started by·G.
Boopathy [PW-55], Inspector of Police, E.5, Pattinapakkam PS,
Chennai. Dr. Ravindran [PW-66] conducted autopsy/post- B
mortem at 10.00 a.m. on 8.11.1996 and he found that the
deceased have died of decapitation of injuries, he opined that
the injuries found on the torso and skull were anti~mortem a'pd
the decea~ed would appear to have died of decapitation and
he further stated that the respective surface of the fifth cervical c
vertebra· of the head are reciprocally fitting into the
corresponding surface of the sixth cervical vertebra of'ff1e torso
and this articulation was exact in nature and hence he opined
that the head and torso belonged to one and the same peraon.
c · 33. The other'.limbs .of the deceased were recovered by D
Gopalan [PW44]; Sub-Inspector in Marakk~mam Police.Station
bn 21.11.1996' in a pale-coloured with yellow, red and green
checks in a lungi-like bed-sheet and along ·with it was torn
polythene bag and a pale cloth thread. ·· ·
E
, 34. In the present case there is no. direct evidence to prove
that the accused had himself taken the torso and .limbs of the
deceased to M~dras and threw the limbs somew,here (while
transit.to..tvi~dras).and also that accus~d ~(riedJhe:P?f~I of
torso to •Madras and dropped it in Jhe bus No. 21G at F
Tamba.ram but, there is.only circumstantial evidence.··
. - ,, 35. dne 'of the clinching evid~nce against: the accused is
the two suitcases [MOs 13 & 14]. Raja Chidambaram [PW-37),
the room mate of the accused, stated in.his evidence that the
two suitcases in which the blood of the deceased was found G
belong to the accused. He also stated that .M0-22, which is a
bag in which the head of the deceased was recovered, also
belong to the accused. Shagir Thabris [PW-38] also
corroborated the said fact in his. evidence. Blood found in the
suitcases matched with the blood of the deceased which is H
392 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 7 S.C.R.
A blood group 'A'. It is also proved from the evidence of the
students adduced in the case that foul smell was emanating from
the said two suitcases and that when accused was asked about
the said smell, he only replied that it is because of Biryani, which
his mother had given him. Subba @ Vankatesan [PW-28], auto
B driver, has affirmatively stated that the accused had taken out
those two suitcases with him in his auto rickshaw on
06.11.1996 when he dropped him at Chidambaram Railway
Station. The hostel chowkidar examined as PW-29
[Vijayarangam] corroborated the said fact. The students of the
c hostel, Senthilkumar [PW-40], Joe Bulgani [PW-41], not only
spoke about the foul smell emanating from the room where
those suitcases were kept but also of the fact that the accused
had brought those two suitcases with him when he came back
to the hostel on 08.11.1996 morning. These are indeed
circumstantial evidence but all leading to one conclusion that
0
the accused is guilty of the offence of killing the deceased.
There is however some doubt with regard to the place of
occurrence but there is also strong and cogent evidence to
indicate that the room mates of the accused, i.e., PWs 37 and
38, were watching a cricket match during the entire afternoon,
E evening and till late night on 06.11.1996 in the TV room, and
the accused had the room (Room No. 319) all to himself in the
afternoon and evening upto 11.00 p.m. The accused left the
said room with two suitcases at 8.30 p.m. which is proved by
way of evidence of the watchman and auto driver. The room
F mate of the accused, viz., PW-38, came back to Room No. 319
at about 11.00 p.m. and slept and on the next day went home.
36. There are enough circumstantial evidence, as
discussed above, to hold that it is none else but the accused
G who could have caused the concealment of torso and limbs
because it was the accused who had severed the head of
deceased-Navarasu as found earlier and, therefore, he must
have been in possession to the torso and limbs, which were
also subsequently recovered and were also proved to be that
H of deceased-Navarasu.
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN 393
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.)
37. Therefore, if we look at the case, we find that the A
prosecution has succeeded in proving its case on circumstantial
evidence. In the present case all the witnesses are independent
and respectable eye-witnesses and they have not been shown
to have any axe to grind against the accused. And from the
evidence of the several witnesses, as mentioned above, it is B
clear that the accused nurtured ill feeling against the deceased
as the deceased refused to write the record note for accused;
that the deceased was last seen with the accused in the
afternoon of 06.11.1996 and he was searching for him very
eagerly; that the conduct of the deceased was very weird and c
strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also produced
stinking smell; the recovery of skull from canal water, material
objects, like, note books of deceased, gold chain, blood stained
bags, knifes etc.,; and also the evidence of PW-66, PW-65 and
PW-77 who have categorically stated that the skull, torso and D
limbs recovered were of the deceased only.
38. ltis we!l-settled proposition of law that the recovery of
crime objects on the basis of information given by the accused
provides a link in the chain of circumstances. Also failure to
explain one of the circumstances would not be fatal for the E
prosecution case and cumulative effect of all the circumstances
is to be seen in such cases. At this juncture we feel it is apposite
to mention that in the case of State of Kamataka v. K. Yarappa
Reddy reported in (1999) 8 SCC 715 this C_ourt has held that;
the court must have predominance and pre-eminence in F
criminal trials over the action taken by the investigating officers.
Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs
committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other
words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness
to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it. G
39. Hence, minor loopholes and irregularities in the
investigation process cannot form the crux of the case on which
the respondent can rely upon to prove his innocence when there
are strong circumstantial evidences deduced from the said
H
394 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 7 S.C.R.
A investigation which logically and rationally point towards the guilt
of the accused.
40. Therefore in our considered opinion prosecution has
established its case on the basis of strong and cogent
circumstantial evidence and that on the basis of the
8
circumstances proved, there cannot be any other possible or
plausible view favouring the accused. The view taken by the
High Court is totally erroneous and outcome of misreading and
misinterpreting the evidence on record.
C 41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that
the High Court erred in reversing the order of conviction
recorded by the trial Court as the prosecution has established
its case. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order of
D the High Court and restore the judgment and decision of the
trial Court but only with one rider that the sentence awarded
shall run concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the
trial court. While doing so we rely upon sub-section (2) of
section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
E
42. In the result, the appeal is allowed, bail bond of the
respondent is cancelled and the respondent is directed to
surrender before the jail authorities immediately, failing which
the concerned authorities are directed to proceed in
accordance with law.
F
B.B.B. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "circumstantial evidence"Sign in to search