INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADUversusMUTHUSAMY AND ANR.

                               [2008] 13 S.C.R. 309
t-+

                   INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU                        A
                                        v.
                           MUTHUSAMY AND ANR.
                       (Criminal Appeal No.655 of 2002)
J
~                           SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
                                                                          B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH .BEDI, JJ.]

                Criminal Trial - Conviction by Trial Court - Set aside by.
          High Court - On grounds that extra judicial confessions were
          not reliable; that witnesses resiled from statements made dur- c
          ing investigation and that there was manipulation in date of
          receipt of report by Magistrate from police station - Held: In     '
          view of these discrepancies, no case made out for interfer-
          ence in the judgment of High Court - Penal Code, 1860 -
          s. 302 rlw s:34.
    C'f                                                 '·                 D
                According to the prosecution, the deceased was
          throttled and poison was also administered to ·him. The
          accused-Respondents are the father and brother respec-
          tively of the deceased. As the report of ForeJ1sic Science
           Laboratory stated that the viscera of the deceased did E
          not contain any poison, prosecution later on gave up its
          stand that the deceased was administered poison. Trial
          Court relied upon the extra-judicial confessions purport·
          edly made by the accused-Respondents and accordingly
           convicted them under s.302 rlw s.34 IPC. On appeal, the F
          High Court directed acquittal. Hence the present appeal.
               Dismissing the appeal, the Court
               HELD: The High Court referred to the extra-judicial
          confessions and found that they are not reliable. The wit- G
          nesses gave varying version' about the so called extra·
          judicial confessions. Apart from that, the persons .who
~         claimed to have witnessed the ·incident resiled from the
          statemehts made during investigation and there was prac-
                                       309                                H
    310      SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2008] 13 S.C.R.
                                                                      ---1-
A tically 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 manipula-
  tion done to show as if the Magistrate had received the
  report from Police Station on 3.1.1990. In reality the date
B 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, the High Court's judgment does not
  suffer from any infirmity to warrant any interference. [Para
  3] [311-C-E]
c        CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
    No. 655 of 2002
         From the JudgmenUOrder dated 30.3.2001 of the. High
    Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 738 of 1992
D         Shanmugasundaram, S. Thananjayan and V.G. Pragasam           ,..,
    for the Appellants.
          V. Ramasubramanian for the Respondents.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E         Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard.
        1. 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
F deceased. The incident purportedly took place on 3.1.1990.
  Though the prosecution relied on the evidence of many per-
  sons who supposedly witnessed the occurrence, while depos-
  ing in Court, most of them resiled from the statements made
  during investigation. The version projected by the prosecution
G
  was  that the deceased was throttled and also poison was ad-
  ministered to him. But the report of the Forensic Science Labo-
  ratory stated that the viscera did not contain any poison. The              ...
                                                                         ~I
  prosecution, therefore, gave up its stand that the deceased was
  administered poison by the accused persons. There were pur-
  portedly some extra-judicial confessions on which the Trial Court
H
J                 INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v.
                 MUTHUSAMY & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT. J.] ·
                                                                   311


        relied. Accordingly, the accused persons were convicted for A
        offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
        the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). In appeal the High
        Court has, by the impugned judgment, directed acquittal.

....          2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that
        the analysis made by the High Court to direct acquittal cannot    B
        be maintained as the High Court lost sight of several relevant
        factors.
               3. We find that the High Court has referred to the extra-
         judicial confessions and found that they are not reliable. The   c
         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
                                                                          D
         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 E
        .High Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to war-
         rant any interference.
             4. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.

--      8.8.8.                                     Appeal dismissed.      F