Holding

An extra‑judicial confession made to an unbiased, unconnected village administrative officer, when corroborated by the recovered nose‑pin and other material, is reliable and sufficient to uphold the appellant’s conviction, while the co‑accused’s case is distinct and may be decided differently.

Summary

The appellant Kadamanian @ Manikandan and his co‑accused were charged under IPC sections 201, 302, 376 and 404 for the murder of M. Jayalakshmi, whose body was later recovered. The appellant made an extra‑judicial confession to the village administrative officer (PW‑12) detailing the crime and the removal of the victim’s nose‑pin, which was later recovered from a location disclosed by him and identified by the victim’s family. The trial court convicted both accused; the High Court acquitted the co‑accused but upheld the appellant’s conviction, reducing the 376 sentence. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the extra‑judicial confession was reliable, whether the nose‑pin recovery corroborated it, and whether the co‑accused’s acquittal could be based on the same evidence. The Court held that the confession, made to an unbiased officer and corroborated by the nose‑pin and other material, was trustworthy and sufficient for conviction, and that the co‑accused’s case was distinct, justifying a different outcome. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The admissibility and reliability of the extra‑judicial confession made by the appellant.
Whether the recovery of the victim’s nose‑pin constitutes independent corroboration of the confession.
Whether the circumstantial evidence, in the absence of direct eyewitness testimony, is sufficient to sustain conviction.
Whether the co‑accused’s acquittal can be justified on the same evidentiary material.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 164, s. 313
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 201, s. 302, s. 376, s. 404

Subjects

extra‑judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencenose‑pinmurderIPC sections 201,302,376,404convictionacquittalco‑accusedreliability of confession

Judgment

[2016] 4 S. C.R. 513

KADAMANIAN @ MANIKANDAN A
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 2341 of20 I 0)
AUGUST31,2016 B

(JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR AND ARuN MISHRA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 201, 302, 376 and s.404-Prosecution
<.·
under - Circumstantial Evidence- Extra-judicial confession-
Recovery in consequence of confession - Two accused - Victim-
deceased went missing- Her dead body was found - Without clothes-
c
Mutilated face, but nose intact-Her nose pin was missing- PW-6
had seen appellant near place of occurrence-Police suspected
appellant of offences- Extra-judicial confession made by appellant
before village administrative officer, PW-12 - Consequent to that,
nose pin recovered, which was identified by the family members of D
the deceased - Trial court convicted both accused - High Court
acquitted co-accused - On appeal, held: Extra-judicial confession
was made by appellant to PW-12, who was totally unbiased,
unconnected with the controversy in hand and also could not be
stated to be inimical to the appellant- Testimony of PW-12 remained
E
unshaken and therefore extra-judic"ial confessiOn is reliable- Nose
pin worn by the deceased was clearly different from the usual nose-
s tuds- No injury whatsoever was found on the nose, in the
photograph of the deceased- There was no justification in the plea
of appellant that the acquittal of co-accused was based on same
evidence, proved through same set of witness- The recovery of nose F
pin was at the instance of accused and not at the instance of co-
accused - The case of co-accused on a clearly different footing -
Therefore, there was sufficient justification for the High Court, to
have taken a different view in the case of the co-accused.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court G
HELD: 1. There was a clear and categoric extra-judicial
confession made by the appellant to PW-12. During the course of
recording his testimony, PW-12 was subjected to vigorous cross-
examination. His testimony however remained unshaken.
Resultantly, the trial Court, as also, the High Court, concluded H
513
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A that the extra-judicial confession was genuine. The nose-pin has
been identified by the members of the family of the deceased, as
the one that was actually worn by the deceased, when she went
missing. Since the nose-pin was recovered at the instance of the
appellant, from a remote place under an electric transformer, no
one but the appellant could have been aware of its location. [Para
B
18) [525-B, D-EJ
2. The extra judicial confession made to PW-12, was by the
appellant, and not by the co-accused. The recovery of the nose-
pin found missing from the nose of the deceased was at the
instance of the appellant, and not at the hands of the co-accused.
c Therefore, the case of the co-accused, was on a clearly different
footing, and there was sufficient justification for the High Court,
to have taken a different view, SW in the case of the co-accused.
[Para 19) [526-E]
Kala @ Chandrakala v. State through Inspector of
D Police 2016 (7) SCALE 735 - distinguished.
Case Law Reference
2016 (7) SCALE 735 distinguished Para 14
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
E No. 2341 of2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.11.2009 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras, in Criminal Appeal No. 528 of2009.
Su nil Fernandes, Puneeth K. G., Ms. Astha Sharma, Advs. for the
Appellant.
F
M. Yogesh Kamm, Ms. Nithya, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J. I. The prosecution in the
instant case was lodged against the appellant herein - Kadamanian @
G Manikandan, as well as, against co-accused -1.T. Manian@Manikanda,
for the offences under Sections 201, 302, 376 and 404 of the Indian
Penal Code. The aforesaid offences were allegedly committed by the
accused with reference to M. Jayalakshmi.
2. As per the prosecution version, M.Jayalakshmi went missing at
H 7 a.m. on 6.9.2007, having left her residence to answer the call ofnature.
KADAMANIAN@ MANIKANDAN v. STATE REPRESENTED 515
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

Since she did not return, a missing person's report was lodged on 7.9 .2007 A
by her father P.Matheswaran at Namakkam Kumarapalayam Police
Station. It is also relevant to mention, that in the first information report
registered on 7.9.2007, the complainant had attached the photograph of
M. Jayalakshmi, and had also indicated for her identification, that she
was wearing a green colour jacket and saree. It was also expressly
B
mentioned, that she was wearing a nose-stud.
3. On 9.9.2007, a dead body ofa female, was found by a sweeper,
Natarajan-PW4. Based on the recovery of the dead body, another first
information report came to be lodged. On 18.9.2007, the parents of the
deceased - Jayalakshmi, identified the clothing and other artifacts,
recovered with the dead body, as belonging to their daughter. It is also c
relevant to indicate, that the aforesaid identification was affirmed by
none other than the mother of the deceased, Vedammal - PW2. The
mother identified her daughter from the photograph of the dead body.
4. The first needle of suspicion with reference to the appellant
herein - Kadamanian @ Manikandan emerged from the statement of D
the investigating officer, Arumugam - PW20 dated 21.01.2008, affirming
with Shanmugam - PW6, that the appellant had been seen close to the
place of occurrence. Consequent upon the needle of suspicion having
been pointed at the appellant, the appellant allegedly made an extra-
judicial confession to R.V.Alagurajan - PWl2. The aforesaid extra- E
judicial confession can be extracted from his statement made by R.V.
Alagurajan - PW12, to the police. A relevant portion thereof is being
reproduced hereunder:
" ... My name is Manikandan. I am also addressed as Keda
Manian. Name of my wife is Durgadevi. I have one son and a
F
daughter. My native place is Karanthai near Tanjavur. I have
come to Bavani many years back and settled here. I am engaged
in the profession of driving autorikshaw. From 1.9.2007 onwards,
I am running share autorikshaw bearing registration numberT.N.
38 Q 1311 Annamalai of Krishnampalayam taking on hire basis
along with l.T. Mal)i. One Mubarak take the collection from me. G
every day and deposit with the owner on two installments. Myself
and LT. Manian have the habit enjoying the prostitutes who
approach bus stand area. On the last 8.9.07 when myself and
l.T. Manian were operating share autorikshaw, one woman
boarded the share autorikshaw from the bus stand. She did not
H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A get down till the last even after other passengers got down from
the autorikshaw. When asked her name, she innocently told that
her name as Jayalakshmi and she was from Komarapalayam.
She also told that she did not have any money. When myself and
Mani told her that we will take her to her village for which she
agreed. On the way, myself and Mani planned to enjoy that
B
woman. We came to share autorikshaw stand near bus stand and
handed over the collection to Mubarak and left that place. When
Mubarak enquired, Mani told that woman was his relative lady.
Then on the way, I along went to a brancy shop in Nachippa
street and consumed liquor. Then all three ofus consumed food in
c the nearby Amutham mess. When we came out, it was slightly
drizzling. We told that lady that we can leave after the rain stops
and after passing through public toilet and took her to old municipal
ward office. We engaged discussion with that lady and told her to
compromise to our desire and asked her to lay with us. She refused
and started to shout and then we took her to the land on the southern
D
side. There, we tried to remove her blouse and saree, she shouted.
That lady was a strong woman. We could not perform what we
planned. I got annoyed and picked up a stick from nearby and
inserted twice or thrice in her private part. Her shout mellowed
down. Mani told that "let us leave". From not to find further
E identification of the lady, I smashed her face with a stone. Mani
also picked up another stone and threw it on the fac.e of that
woman. We stripped that woman's saree and petty coat and threw
them out. We came to know that she was dead. We thought that
the nose pin worn by her would disclose her identity. I removed
the nose pin and kept it with myself. Then both of us came and
F picked up the share autorikshaw and left it in the workshop of the
owner at Moolapattarai. On the next day, I came and asked Mani
whether police made any enquiry with him for which Mani replied
in negative. I thought that Mubarak may suspect us and indirectly
told Mani, if any one say anything, let us slit the throat. There
G after, we went to the vacant plot near the municipality Kalyana
Mandapam and put the nose pin removed from that woman in a
plastic bag and concealed it there and then for the next 5 days, I
did not run the autorikshaw. Therefore, I went to jail in connection
with two case in Bavani. I came to know that police were in
search me suspecting me. I was scarred and have to you and
H
KADAMANIAN@ MANIKANDAN v. STATE REPRESENTED 517
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

surrender myself." A
5. After R.V. Alagurajan - PW12 had allegedly effectuated the
surrender of the accused - appellant before the Inspector of Police,
Erode town, he had also submitted a letter dated 21.01.2008, at the police
station, which read as under:
"I, village administrative officer of 35B Erode town was in my B
office today at about 12.30 O'Clock in the afternoon with my
assistant Manikkam, Keda Manian alias Manikandan, resident of
door number 47 Sreenivasapuram, Bavani appeared before and
told that he was involved in the murder of a woman on the last 8'h
September near the Erode bus stand and gave a statement and I c
am producing him and the statement given by him to you for fmther
,·
action."
6. Consequent upon the appellant, having been produced before
the Inspector of Police, the accused-appellant Kadamanian @
Manikandan made a confessional statement on the same day, i.e., on D
22.01.2008, to the Inspector of Police, Erode, inter alia affirming as
under:
" ... That woman was a healthy and strong and she pushed me
and started shouting. We got annoyed as we could not do anything
as we planned and therefore, I picked up a stick which was lying
E
there and stabbed her private pait three times with that stick.
Her shouts mellowed down and she became semi conscious. I.T.
Mani told to leave at that stage. I told him that it would be
dangerous if we leave her like that and she would identify us and
her identity should not be known to any one and therefore, I picked
up the stone which was laying nearby and threw it on her face F
and assaulted her. Mani also picked up another stone and threw
it on her face. We came to know that she was dead. There was
no movement of her. We removed her saree, petty coat, beads
from her neck and kept it nearby and we thought with the nose
pie worn by her, her identity would be known easily and there
G
removed the nose pin also. Then we came out. At that time,
Shanmugam who words as Kalasi saw us. We went to share
autorikshaw stand and picked up the share authorikshaw and went
to Moolapattaqrai and left the auto rikshaw in the work shop. LT.
Mani left for his house. On the next day, earlier morning, I boarded
a bus from Moolapatrai reached home. On the next day after H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016) 4 S.C.R.

A noon, I reached Erode share auto bus stand, as ifl know nothing
met Mani and asked him whether police made any enquiry. He
answered in negative. I told him that some information may come
out through Mubarak and if any information is leaked out through
some one, we should slit throat of such person. However, we told
him to assess the situation. I told him that I will not come fornext
B
five days and when I left there, I went to vacant plot on the south
·of municipality Kalyanamandapam and put the nose pin which I
removed from that woman in a plastic bag and buried it near the
transformer in that plot. Then I left for home. I was careful that
no one should suspect me. In the meanwhile on one, there was a
c quarrel between me and my wife as regard to eating of mutton ..·
Neighbor Gobi came and asked "why are you shouting? How can
we live here? And a dispute arose between me' and him and a
case has been registered against me and I was in custody for 13
days. When I came out on bail, I was arrested on a Rowdy case
and sent me to custody. When I came out on bail, when I reached
D to share auto rikshaw stand for running auto rikshaw, police
however came to know that myself and I. T.Mani have committed
the murder of that woman and the police is in search of us. I
thought, if police arrest me, they would beat me and ~arass and
therefore, surrendered before town YAO today. He has sent me
E to you. At that time, I have given this statement. Ifl am ta~en, I
would identify and produce the nose pin where I have concealed
it."
7. It is the version of the prosecution, that based on the afore-
stated statement made by the appellant, a nose-stud was recovered at
F the instance of the appellant on 22.01.2008. The fact, that the same
belong to the deceased- Jayalakshm i was confirmed by various witnesses
including PW2-Vedammal, the motherofthe deceased. After recording
the statements of the prosecution witnesses, and also, the statement of
the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the
accused were afforded an opportunity to lead their evidence in defence.
G The accused availed off the above opportunity, and thereafter, the trial
Court rendered its judgment dated 5.8.2009, convicting both the accused
of the o(fences levelled against them.
8. Dissatisfied with the order passed by the trial Court dated
5.8.2009, both the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No. 528 of2009,
H
KADAMANIAN@ MANIKANDAN v. STATE REPRESENTED 519
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

bef~re the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to A ·,
as the ''High Court"). A Division Bench of the High Court, accepted the
·appeal preferred by accused no.2 - I.T. Manian @ Manikanda, and
ordered his acquittal. The appeal preferred by the appellant herein was
dismissed. Although, the sentences awarded by the trial Court, under
various provisions of the IPC, were by and large maintained, the sentence
B
awarded to the appellant (by the trial Court) under Section 376 ofthe
Indian Penal Code was reduced from 10 years to 7 years. Insofar as the
other sentences are concerned, the appellant was ordered to--Suffer
imprisonment for three years for the offence under Section 201 of the
Indian Penal Code, he was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian
Penal Code to stiffer life imprisonment, and for the offence under Section c
404 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to suffer imprisonment
for three years.
9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant
raised various contentions. First and foremost , it was sought to be
canvassed, that there was no direct or ocular evidence recorded at the D
behest of the prosecution, so as to render clear and unambiguous
culpability of the appellant. It was pointed out, thatthe conviction of the
appellant by the trial Court, as also, by the B_igh Court, was based only
on circumstantial evidence. The most relevant circumstantial evidence
. taken into consideration by the High Court, according to learned counsel,
was the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, to R.V. E
· Alagurajan - PW12 on 22.1.2008. The details of the aforesaid
confessional statement have already been recorded by us hereinabove.
It was the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that R.V.
Alagurajan - PW12 was a stark stranger to the appellant, an_d therefore,
there was no occasion for the appellant, to have made a confessional F
statement to him. It was submitted, that in any case, keeping in mind the
fact, that the deceased - Jayalakshmi had gone missing on 6.9.2007,
there was no justification for the accused - appellant to have made a
confessional statement months thereafter, on 22.1.2008.
I 0. We would have ordinarily dealt with the instant submission by G
itself. However, during the course of hearing, the same was sought to
be linked with another submi~sion advanced at the hands o,fthe le~rned
counsel for the appellant, namely, the recovery of the nose-stud at the
behest of the confessional statement made by the accused-appellant to
the Inspector Arumugam - PW20 on 22.1.2008. It was the contention
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the nose-stud recovered at
the behest of the appellant, weighted only 0.215 mg. It was pointed out,
that there are thousands of such nose-pins, and it was wholly improper
for the prosecution to rely on the trumped up recovery of a nose-pin. It
was submitted, that it was the case of the prosecution itself, that the
nose-pin in question was of the value of just about Rs.450/-. The more
B
vigorous submission with reference to the nose-pin was, that the case of
the prosecution, that the appellant herein, as also, the co-accused had
badly mutilated the face of the deceased-Jayalakshmi, by crushing her
face with stones, and as such, there was no question of the recovery of
the nose-pin form a mutilated face. It was submitted, that ifthe accused
c had taken the nose-pin after mutilating the face of the accused, the
nose-pin ought to have had fragments of skin, bone and blood. However,
the nose-pin recovered was clean and without any human tissue. It was
also submitted, that the nose-pin, which was allegedly recovered at the
instance of the appellant, was perfectly in-tact. In this behalf, it was
pointed out, that ifthe face of the deceas·ed - Jayalakshmi was crushed
D
with stones, the nose-pin could not be expected to have retained its
original shape.
11. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the two
submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant.
Insofar as the extra-judicial confession is concerned, it is necessary to
E emphasize, that the non-recording of the extra-judicial confession over a
span of time, in the facts of the present case, was inconsequential. We
say so, because the appellant was not a suspect till 21.1.2008. The
appellant feared his arrest with reference to the allegations pertaining to
the deceased - Jayalakshmi, only when the investigating officer,
F Arumugam- PW20 affirmed with Shanmugam-PW6 on 21.01.2008,
that the appellant had been seen, close to the place of occurrence. It is
immediately thereafter, and on the immediately following day, that the
appellant made an extra-judicial confession to R.V. Alagurajan -PW 12.
· 12. It is also not a matter of dispute, that R.V. Alagurajan - PW 12
G was the then Village Administrative Officer. It is obvious, that the
aforesaid extra-judicial confession was made as is apparent from the
statement of the appellant (extracted hereinabove) to save himself from
any adverse, physical handling by the investigating authorities.
Undoubtedly, R.Y. Alagurajan - PW 12, the Village Administrative
Officer, effectuated the aforesaid object, by accompanying the appellant
H
KADAMANIAN @ MANIKANDAN v. STATE REPRESENTED 521
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

to the police station, and ensuring his arrest at the hands of Arumugam- A
PW20.
13. Insofar as the submissions advanced at the hands of the learned
counsel for the appellant with reference to the nose-pin are concerned,
we are of the view, that none of the contentions advanced on behalf of
the appellant, can be accepted as a val id justification, for exculpating the B
appellant from the charges levelled against him. In this behalf, it would
be relevant to mention, that a missing person's report was registered by
the father of the deceased- P. Matheswaran, on 7 .9.2007. In the missing
person's report, it was clearly mentioned, that the deceased was wearing
a nose-pin when she had gone missing. The reason for indicating, that
the deceased was wearing a nose-pin, was with the clear purpose of
c
aiding the identification of his missing daughter - Jayalakshmi. This
was obviously for the reason, that the deceased - Jayalakshmi, was
mentally unstable, and would not have been in a position to express her
identification, or the identification of her parents, or the place of her
residence, by herself. In the recovery mahazar dated 22.1 :2008, the D
recovered nose-pin was depicted as being imbedded with four white
stones. It is therefore apparent, that the nose-pin worn by the deceased
- Jayalakshmi when she had gone missing, was not any ordinary
unidentifiable artifact, but was clearly different from the usual nose-
studs. Not only that, the photograph of the deceased submitted along
with the missing person's report dated 7.9.2007 shows a clear picture E
of the nose-pin, and therefore, to say that the involvement of the accused
on the basis of the nose-pin, was improper, is not acceptable. Insofar as
the absence of blood, skin .tissue and bone tissue on the nose-pin is
concerned, it is clear to us, thatthe submissions were made by the learned
counsel, without having viewed the photograph of the deceased, as is F
available on the record of the trial Court. As already noticed hereinabove,
the nose-pin was worn by the deceased-Jayalakshmi, in the photograph
attached to the missing person's report dated 7.9.2007. The same was
missing · from the photograph of the deceased, after her body was
recovered. The nose itself was not mutilated, and was in-tact. No injury
whatsoever was found on the nose, in the photograph of the deceased. G
It was therefore wholly unjustified, for the learned counsel for the
appellant to have raised the submission, that the absence of any human
tissue on the nose-pin, would lead to the inference, that the nose-pin in
question, was not the one belonging to the deceased. For the reasons
recorded hereinabove, we find no merit in the instant contentions, H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A advanced on behalf of the appellant.
~ 14. Insofar as the veracity of the extra judicial confession made
by the appellant is concerned.it would be relevantto mention that, learned
counsel, during the course of hearing, placed reliance on a judgment
rendered by this Court in Kala@Chandrakala vs. State through Inspector
B of Police (Criminal Appeal No. 1791 of2010, decided on 12.08.2016),
wherein this Court had observed as under:
6. Firstly, we will examine whether the extra-judicial confession
which is a weak kind of evidence, inspire the confidence. Susheela,
P. W.4 has stated that Murugesan was married to the appellant 14
c years before the incident. She came in search of his brother
Murugesan to the house of the deceased. Murugesan has told
her on 12.5.2005 that appellant had threatened to kill him-as he
was habitual of consuming alcohol. When she .did not receive
any telephone call for 15 days from the deceased; she went to his
_village. On enq·uiry she was informed by the appellant that she,
D her nephew Prakasam and father murdered-the deceased and
threw his body under the bi-idge. ·Susheela, P. W.4 further stated
that the appell11nt touched her legs and statedth.!lt she would give
properties of her father lo two chi°Jdren and that she should not
· infrinn-the police. ·Thereafter, P.W.4 went to the police station on .
E the .same day and lodged the complaint :- Ex.P2, The police
showed her the photograph, shirt and slippers and asked her to
identify the same. She identified them to be of her brother. She
has further stated to have gone to police station after 5 days with .
photograph of deceased. In the cross-examination, she has also
stated that she had signed the agreement-for sale of iand executed·
F by the accused. It is apparent that accused was not having good
relationship with Susheela, PW.4. Making confession to such an
inimical person is most unlikely. When the witness had gone in
search of the deceased to the house of the accused it is most
unlikely that the confessional statement wouJd be made to her
G readily. It is not that the appellant had. gone to the house of P. W.4
_to make the confession. On the othe~ hand query was made by
. ~-
the daughter of the deceased to Susheela, P.W.4 as to th·e
whereabouts of the deceased, meaning thereby the whereabouts
·of the deceased were not known even to his daughter. In case
the deceased had been killed in the house, perhaps the daughter
.H
KADAMANIAN @ MANIKANDAN v. STATE REPRESENTED 523
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

would have known about the offence having been committed by · A
the accused.
7. In Sahadevan and Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC
403, it has been observed that extra-judicial confession is weak
piece of evidence. Before acting upon it the ·court must ensure
that the -same inspires confidence and it is co1Toborated by other · B
prosecution evidence. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995
Supp (4) SCC 259, it has been observed that extra-judicial
confession requires great deal o'f care and caution before
acceptance. There should be no suspicious circumstances
surrounding it. In Pakkirisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (1997) 8
sec 15 8 it has been observed that there.has to be independent
c
corroboration for placing any reliance upon extra-judicial
confession. In Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadu (1998) 6 SCC 108
it has been observed that reliability of the same depends upon the
veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made. Similar view has
been expressed in State ofRajasthan v. Raja Ram (2003) 8 SCC D
180, in which this Court has further observed that witness must
be unbiased and not even remotely inimical to the accused. In
Aloke nath Dutta v. State of West Bengal (2007) 12 SCC 230 it
has been observed that the main features of confession are required.
to be verified. In Sansar Chand v. State ofRajasthan (2010) 10
SCC 604 it has been observed that e~tra-judicial confession should . E
be corroborated by some other material on record. In Ram~shbhai
Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat (2009) 5 SCC 740 it has
been observed that in the case of refracted confession it is unsafe
· fop.the Court to rely on it. In Vijay Shankar v. State 'of Haryana
(2015) 12 SCC 644 this Court has followed the decision in F
Sahadevan (supra).".
Based on the aforesaid judgment rendered by this Court, it was submitted,
that the extra-judicial confession being a weak piece of evidence, should
not have been relied upon, for determining the culpability of the appellant.
15. Having given our thoughtful consideration on the above G
contention, we are of the view, that the judgment relied upon by learned
counsel, is wholly inapplicable in the facts and circumstances of this
case, for two distinguishing features fa the present case, namely, thatthe
extra judicial confession in the instant case was made to the Village
Administrative Officer R.V. Alagurajan - PW12, who was totally H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A unbiased and unconnected with the controversy in hand. He could also
not to be stated to be inimical to the appellant. He is not shown to have
any relationship with either the complainant or the accused. Moreover,
insofar as the extra judicial confession made in the judgment relied upon
by the appellant is concerned, the same had been made by the accused,
to the sister of the deceased, which by itself made the extra judicial
B
confession extremely doubtful. We are therefore not impressed with
the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, based
on the cited judgment.
16. The next contention advanced at the hands of the learned
counsel for the appellant was, on the ffiird circumstantial evidence taking
c into consideration, namely, the last seen evidence. For establishing the
above circumstance, the prosecution had relied upon two witnesses,
Shanmugam - PW6, and Mubarak - PW7. In the statements recorded
by the aforesaid two witnesses under Section 161 of the Criminal
Procedure Code, they had stated, that they had seen the appellant and
D the co-accused in the company of the deceased -Jayalakshmi. While
recording their statements before the trial Court, Shanmugam - PW6
and Mubarak~ PW7 resiled from the version indicated by them, to the
investigating officer. It is therefore apparent, that no last seen evidence,
could be substantiated by the prosecution, during the course of the trial
of the appellant. We are of the view, that the deposition at the hands of
E Shanmugam - PW6 and Mubarak- PW7, can be described as a matter
of improper handling of the case, inasmuch as, both Shanmugam - PW6
and Mubarak - PW7 had also recorded their statements under Section
164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, affirming, that they had seen the
appellant and the co-accused in the company of the deceased -
F Jayalakshmi. However, since the statement of the two prosecution
witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164 of the Criminal Procedure
Code, was not put to them, after they were declared hostile, and were
subjected to cross-examination at the behest of the prosecution, we have
no alternative, but to overlook the last seen evidence sought to be
projected by the prosecution.
G
17. Jn the above view of the matter, it was the contention of the
learned counsel for the appellant, that there was no material evidence
available on the record of the case, to return a clear finding of guilt,
against the appellant. It was submitted, that the circumstantial evidence
projected through the prosecution witnesses, did not complete the chain
H
,
KADAMANIAN@ MANIKANDAN v. STATE REPRESENTED 525
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, J.]

of circumstances, as would establish the guilt of the appellant. A
18. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant. As
noticed hereinabove, there was a clear and categoric extra-judicial
confession made by the appellant to R.V. Alagurajan - PW12 on
22.1.2008. During the course of recording his testimony, R.V. Alagurajan B
- PW12 was subjected to vigorous cross-examination. His testimony
however remained unshaken. Resultantly, the trial Court, as also, the
High Court, concluded that the extra-judicial confession was genuine.
We endorse the above determination at the hands of the trial Court and
the High Court. Consequent upon the accused-appellant's extra-judicial
confession, the appellant was taken to the police station by R.V.
c
Alagurajan - PW 12, and produced before Inspector Arumugam - PW20.
It is therefore apparent, that the arrest of the appellant at the behest of
R.V. Alagurajan - PW 12, has also been clearly established. The next
chain in the circumstantial evidence projected at the hands of the
prosecution, was the recovery of the nose-pin on 22.1.2008, based on D
the statement of the appellant, to Inspector Arumugam - PW20. The
afore-stated nose-pin has been identified by the members of the family ·
of the deceased, as the one that was actually worn by the deceased,
when she went missing. Since the nose-pin was recovered at the instance
of the appellant, from a remote place under an electric transformer, no
one but the appellant could have been aware of its location. Its recovery
E
was therefore suffient, along with the other evidence referred to above,
to clearly implicate the appellant. It is also necessary for us to mention,
that there is yet another aspect of the matter, which furthers the cause
of the prosecution, namely, the statement of M.Abdul Khader- PW8.
In this behalf, it would be relevant to mention, that the appellant used to F
hire a share-autorikshaw, for earning his livelihood. The aforesaid
autorikshaw was hired from the garrage of Annamalai- PW9. M.Abdul
Khader - PW8 was engaged as an accountant at the garrage of
Annamalai - PW9. It was pointed out in the deposition of M.Abdul
Khader - PW8, that on a daily basis the share-autorikshaw hired by the
accused-appellant and the co-accused used to be returned to the garrage G
of Annamalai - PW9 between 8.30 p.m to 9.30 p.m .. However, on the
date of occurrence, i.e., the relevant date when the alleged crime was
committed, the share-autorikshaw was returned on the following day, at
1.30 a.m. The case of the prosecution is, that the autorikshaw was used
by the appellant and the co-accused in commission of the crime. It was H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 4 S.C.R.

A imperative for the appellant to have expressly indicated the reasons and
justification for not returning the autorikshaw to the garrage ofAnnamalai
-PW9 between 8.30 p.m. to 9.30 p.m., on the relevant date. Not having
done so, by itself, is a cause of suspicion, specially when there is other
. material evidence, projected by the prosecution, to demonstrate the
involvement of the appellant, in the commission of the crime. We are of
B
the view, that the aforesaid evidence recorded by the prosecution was
sufficient, even in the absence oflast seen evidence, to return a finding
of guilt against the appellant.
19. It is imperative for us to record, that in addition to the.afore-
stated submissions advanced at the hands of the learned counsel for the
c appellant, learned counsel had also contended, that the co-accused was
acquitted by the High Court, and that, his acquittal was based on the
same evidence, produced through the same witnesses. It was contended,
that it was improper and unjustified, for the High Court, to have convicted
the appellant, and acquitted the co-accused, Oil the same evidence. We
D find no justification in the instant 9ontention advanced at the hands'of
. the learned counsel. We have already recorded hereinabove, that the
extra judicial confession made to R.V.Alagurajan-PWl2, was by the
appellant herein, and not by the co-accused. We have also recorded
hereinaboW,41Jat the recovery of the nose-pin found missing from the
nose of the deceased,. was. at the instance of the appellant, and not at the
E hands of the co-accused. Therefore, the case Of the co-accused, was
on a clearly different footing, and there was sufficieotjustificatioff for
the High Court, to have taken a different view,SW in the case of the co-
accused. ·
20. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, we find no justification
F whatsoever to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded' to·
the appellant, by the High Court.
21. The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Ankit Gyan Appeal dismissed.