PARAMSIVAM & ORS.versusSTATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                     [2014] 8 S.C.R. 813


                    PARAMSIVAM & ORS.                               A
                               v.
        STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE
            (Criminal Appeal No. 593 of 2010)

                        JULY 01, 2014
                                                                    B
       [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND
                DIPAK_ MISRA, JJ.]

       Penal Code, 1860: s.302, s.302 rlw s.3,/,. 364 -Abduction
 and murder - Previous enmity between victim-deceased and           C
 accused persohs - Allegation that accused persons abducted
 the victim-deceased and thereafter killed him and threw his
 body on railway tracks - Since at that time the identity of body
 was not known, the police after investigation buried the body
 - On complaint of missing of deceased and investigation, the       D
 police exhumed the body and after DNA examination found
 it to be that. of the victim-deceased - Conviction of accused
 no. 1 to 3 based on circumstantial evidence - On appeal, held:
 Prosecution was successful in bringing on record fi.te
 circumstantial evidences such as existence of motive, the          E
 circumstances in which the deceased was last seen alive in
 the company of accused nos. 1 to 3, homicidal death and
 recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of accused
 persons - The evidence proved that prosecution succeeded
 in pr-00ng the facts that the accused nos. 1 to 3 took away        F
 deceased - What happened thereafter to deceased was
 especially within the knowledge of accused nos. 1 to 3 - When
 deceased is shown to be abducted, it is for the abductors to
 explain how they dealt with the abducted victim - In the
  absence of explanation, Court is to draw inference that           G
  abductors are the murderers - It was for accused nos. 1 to 3
· to explain what happened to the deceased after they took him
  away but they failed to explain the same - The deceased was
  found dead immediately thereafter - Therefore, accused nos. 1
                              813                                   H
    814      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             (2014] 8 S.C.R.


A to 3 who abducted the deceased intentionally withheld the
  information from the Court and, there was every justification
  for drawing inference that accused nos. 1 to 3 murdered the
  deceased - Guilt of the appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 proved
  beyond all reasonable doubt - No interference with the order
B of conviction.

         Evidence: Held: In cases of circumstantial evidence,
    proof of motive is material consideration and a strong
    circumstance.

C     The prosecution case was that the victim-deceased
  took on lease the land belonging to PW-3 and PW-6.
  Accused no. 6 was the owner of the neighboring land.
  Since accused no. 1 and 6 threatened the deceased not
  to break the stone, the deceased had filed a suit for
D permanent injunction restraining accused no. 6 and PW-
  3 and 6 from interfering with the quarrying.
      About 10 days prior to the date of occurrence also
  accused no.1, 6 and 7 threatened the deceased. About 4
E days prior to the date of occurrence, accused no.2 and
  another person approached the deceased for purchase
  of stone and since it was late hours, the deceased
  refused to accompany them and asked them to come on
  some other day. Again accused no.2 and another person
  approached the deceased on 18.1.2004 and asked for
F stones and deceased accompanied the accused to the
  quarry. PW1 and PW2 witnessed that deceased went
  along with accused no.2 and accused no.3. On the said
  date i.e.18.1.2004, PW8 and PW9 who were returning from
  the Petrol Pump, saw a van parked on the road side. PW9
G saw the deceased and accused no.1 sitting inside the
  van. Next day, a dead body was found on the railway
  tracks. Since the identity of the dead body was not
  known, after investigation and autopsy, it was burjed.

H         On 20.01.2014, PW-1 lodged complaint regarding
PARAMSIVAM v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 815
                  POLICE
missing of the deceased. After investigation, PW-41, the     A
investigating officer made arrests of the accused
persons. The accused person made confessions which
led to recovery of many items. On 17.02.2004, the dead
body was exhumed and after DNA test the same was
identified to be that of the deceased.                       B

     The trial court held that the prosecution has proved
that in connection with quarry business, there was
previous enmity which resulted in abduction and murder
of the deceased by accused no. 1 to 3. Accused no.1 to
3 were convicted under Section 364 IPC and accused           C
no.1 under Section 302 IPC and accused no.2 and 3
under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. With regard to
accused nos.4 to 7, the trial court held that the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt against them and
acquitted them. The High Court confirmed the order of the    D
trial court. The instant appeal was filed challenging the
conviction.

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court.
                                                             E
     HELD: 1. In the pleadings, PWs.1 and 2 have spoken
in one voice about deceased taking quarry of lease from
PWs.3 and 6 and that accused no.1, accused no.6 and
accused no.7 were raising objection to carry out
quarrying work. The evidence of PWs.3 and 6 also
strengthened prosecution version about the grant of
                                                             F
lease. Filing of suit on 02.1.2004 about "two weeks prior
to the occurrence heightened the probability of
prosecution case. In cases of circumstantial evidence,
proof of motive is material consideration and a strong
circumstance. [Para 7, 8] [826-A-B]                          G

     2. The evidence of PWs.1 and 2 was cogent and
consistent which clearly brought home the circumstance
that deceased went along with accused nos. 2 and 3. In
the Test Identification Parade conducted by PW38-Judicial    H
   816     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A Magistrate, PWs.1 and 2 also identified accused hos. 2'
  and 3 which strengthened the stand of the prose~ution.
  PW1 stated in the complaint that two p~rsons came tO
  their house and took the deceased in the van. In Ext.Ph
  Complaint, PW1 clearly expressed his doubts that
B accused, nos. 1, 6 amt 7 might have engaged men for.
  abducting the deceased. Such doubts expressed _in
  Ext.P1 -Complaint was sufficient incriminating
  circumstance against the accused nos. 2 and. 3.
  Credibility of PWs. f and 2 cannot be doubted on the
C ground of non-mention of name of accused no.2 in
  Ext.P1 -Complaint. The evidence of PW9 also established
  that the deceased was last seen alive with accused np.1
  in the van near checkpost. In his evidence,PW9 stated
  that after taking petrol near the checkpost While h~ was
D proceeding along with PW8, he saw the deceased al_ong
  with accused no.1 in the van and saw the others inside
  the Van. Since, deceased and accused no.1 were in
  inimical terms, PW9 wondered as to why accused no.1
  and deceased were seen together and he asked PWB
E about the same. Though, PW8 turned hostile, evidence.
  of PW9 was trustworthy and there was no reason to take
  a different view. Another circumstances relied upon by
  the prosecution.was evidence of PW15 (brother of the
  deceased) that accused no. 1 and another person came
F to the quarry to see stones. Vlih.en tttey were crushing the
  stones, deceased went with them to see the stones. No
  doubt, evid,ence of PW15 as to how deceased went with
  the acc~sed R1ight appear to be slightly different but due
  to variation o(tinte narrating the events cannot. be said
  in mannerthe,~W1S narrated his statement The evidence.
G of PW-15 di(I not·make any dent upon the consistent
  verSiQn of PWs-.1 and 2 and the case of prosecution.
  Since identity of the body was not known, body -vvas
  buried, Later at the request of Investigating Officer,. bociy,
  was exhumed in the presence of PW21-Tahsildar. After
H the body was exhumed, PW34 collected the blood for
 PARAMSIVAM v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 817
                   POLICE
 DNA test. Blood samples of PW14 and PW15 (mother and         A
·brother of the deceased) were also collected. Evidence
of PW40-Asst. Director amply established identity of body
f'.ecovered from the railway track as that of the deceased.
 [Paras 10, 11, 12 and 14] [825-H; 826~A-H; 827-A-B, F-G;
·82a~                                                         s
     3. _When deceased is shown to be abducted, ilis for
the abductors to explain how they dealt with the abducted
victim. In the absence of explanation, Court is to draw
inference that abductors are the murderers. In the instant
case, the ·prosecution brought on record the evidences C
that accused no.1 to 3 had abducted the deceased.
Therefore, it is accused nos.1 to 3 alone who knew. what
happened ta, him as the deceased was found murdered ·
within a short time after abduction. Accused nos.1 to 3
have faile~ to give any explanation and the Court rightly D
drew presum·ption that the accused have murdered the
deceased. [Paras 15, 18] [828•8-C; 829-F]
    State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. (2000)
8 SCC 382: 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 712; Sucha Singh v. State      E
of Punjab (2Q01) 4 sec 375.: 2001 (2) SCR~44 - relied on.

     4. The prosecution relied upori the statement of
accused pers.ons leading to discovery of facts as
envisaged under Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act.
Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were arrested on, 28.1.2004 at F
different times. Confession statement of acC.use,d _no.1 _led
to recovery of Voter ID Card of the deceased and other ·
articles. Confession s~tement recorded from: ac~used
no.2 led to recovery of Pocket Diary, Money 'purse with
photo of deceased and other articles. C()nf~ssiOn G
statement of accused no.5 Driver led to seizure of the
van. Accused no.3 and accused no.4 were surrendered
before the Court and on application, PW41-lnvestigating
Officer took them for police custody. Confession
statement recorded from accused no.3 led to recovery of H
        818     SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2014) 8 S.C.R.


    A Torch light (M06) which was handed over fo the
      deceased by PW2 at the time when he left the house.
      PW2 also identified M06 as the torch light handed over
      by her at the time wl)en the deceased left the house.
      Recovery of variou§..articles of the deceased from.
    B accused nos.1/ to '?~cwas a strong incriminating
      circumstance ..cfnnedJ'ng the appellants. with the crime.
      [Para 19] [829-G-H; 83lf-A-D]   · --

          Aili/ alias Raju Namdev Patil v. Administration of Daman
      & Diu, Daman and Anr. (2006) 13 SCC 36> 2006 (9) Suppl.
    C SCR 466; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh (1999) 4
      sec 370: 1999 (1) SCR-1033 - relied on.
             5. The Prosecution was successful in bringing on
        record the circumstantial '.evidences i.e. existence of
    D   motive; the circumstances in which the deceased was
        last seen alive· in the company of appellants-accused
        nos.1 to 3; ·death was homicidal and body was found on
        the railway track mutilated; the body of the deceased was
        identified through DNA test; on ar..rest of accused
/   E   incriminating articles were recovered. Upon analysis of
        evidence, prosecution succeeded in proving the facts
        that the accused nos.1 to 3 took away deceased. What
        happened thereafter to deceased was especially within
        the knowledge of the appellants-accused nos.1 to 3. It
    F   was for accused nos. 1 to 3 to explain what happened to
        the deceased after they took him away but they failed to
        explain the same. The deceased was found dead
        immediately thereafter. Therefore, accused nos.1 to 3 ,who
        abducted the deceased intentionally withheld the
    G   information from the Court and, therefore, there was
        every justification for drawing inference that accused
        nos.1 to 3 murdered th~ deceased. Stand of the
        appellants was a bare denial of prosecution case. In the
        absence of ·any e~~anation, the inevitable inference was
        that appellants were responsible for the death of
    H
PARAMSIVAM v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 819
                  POLICE
deceased. Thus, the guilt of the appellants-accused nos.          A
1 to 3 was proved beyond all reasonable doubt. [Paras
24, 25) [831 ~A-G]
                     Case law reference:
   2000· (2) Suppl. SCR 712       relied on       para 16         8
   2001 (2) SCR 644               relied on       para 17
   2006 (9) Suppl. SCR 466        relied on       para 21
   1999 (1) SCR 1033              relied on       para 22
                                                                  c
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No.593 of 2010

   From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2009 in Crl
Appeal No. 441/2007 of the High Court of Judicature at
Madras.                                                           D

    8. Raghunath, Vijay Kumar for the Appellants.
   M. Yogesh Kanna, Vanita Chandrakant Giri, A. Santa
Kumar for the Respondent.                                         E

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

    SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J. : 1. This
appeal is directed against judgment dated 27th April, 2009,
passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal      F
Appeal No.441 of 2007. By the impugned judgment appeal
preferred by the appellants-accused nos.1 to 3 has been
                                      .
dismissed and conviction of accused nos.1 to 3 u/s 364 IPC
and accused no.1 u/s 302 IPC and accused nos.2 and 3 u/s
302 r/w 34 IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment and fine     G
imposed upon them have been confirmed.

    2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is as follows:

     Deceased Mani alias Parai Mani took lease of the land
in S.F. No. 427/1 of Vadapudur village belonging to PW3-          H
    820    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A Krishnasamy and PW6-Ramasamy. Accused No.6-
  Nagarathinam was the neighbouring land owner. Since
  Accused No.1-Paramasivam and Acc;used No.6-Nagarathinam
  threatened the deceased not to break the stone, deceased
  Mani alias Parai Mani filed suit in O.S. No. 5/2004 before DMC,
B Pollachi for Permanent Injunction restraining Accused no.6 and
  PWs.3 and 6 from interfering with quarrying. There was
  animosity between the deceased and the family of Accused
  no.6-Nagarathinam.

       About 10 days prior tu the date of occurrence, Accused
C no.1-Paramasivam, Ace.used no.6-Nagarathinam and Accused
  no.7-Revathi threatened the deceased. About 4 days prior to
  the date of occurrence, Accused no.2-Selvaraj alias Selvan and
  another person approached the deceased for purchase of
  stone and since. it was late hours, deceased refused to
D accompany them and asked them to come on some other day.

       Again Accused no.2 and another person approached the
  deceased on 18.1.2004 and asked for stones and deceased
  accompanied the accused to the quarry. PW1-Kannaiyan and
E PW2-Kala witnesseq that deceased went along with Accu.sed
  no.2-Selvaraj alias Selvan and Accused no.3-Nirmal. On the
  said date i.e.18.1.2004, PW8-Sivakumar and PW9-Doraisamy
  who were returning from the Petrol Pump, saw white colour
  Maruthi Van bearing registration No. TN-23 E 5951 (M01) was
F parked on the rqad side. PW9 saw the deceased and Accused
  no.1 were sitting inside the Marut.hi Van.

       Next day on 19.1.2004, PW2~-Pugazhenthi (Rail~ay Key
  Man), Thirupur saw the dead body on the railway track and
  informed PW20-Ramachandran (Station Master) wlio in turn
G informed the Out-post Police Station, Thirupur. PW24-
  Sankaralingam (Heiid Constable)' recei.ved the report and
  registered the case for 'suspicious de.at~' in Cr. No". 12/2004
  u/s 174 Cr.P.C. PW24-Head Constable went tQ the scene of
  occurrence and found the dead body of a male on the railway
H track, prepared Opservation Mahazar (Ex.P15) and Rough Plan
 PARAMSIVAM v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 821
  POLICE [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
(Ex.P16). PW24 also held Inquest on the body of the deceased       A
(Ex.P18) and sent the dead body for autopsy to Government
Hospital, Thirupur. On his request PW27-Nizar Ahemad had
taken photographs (M018 series) of the body lying on the
railway track.
                                                                   B
     PW33-Dr.Parimala Devi conducted autopsy over the dead
body and noted the injuries, Dr. Devi opined that death was due
to multiple injuries on the neck and head injuries about 70 to
80 hours prior to autopsy. Since there was no clue about the
identity of the dead body, body was buried at Chellandiamman       C
grave yard Tirupur by PW24-Head Constable with the aid of
PW22-Murugasamy (Grave yard watch man).

    Since, deceased not returned home, PWs.1 and 2
searched for him and on 20.1.2004 PW1 lodged written
complaint [Ext.P1]. On the basis of written complaint, PW39-       D
Rajendran (Inspector of Police) registered the case in Cr. No.
27/2004 u/s 363 IPC. PW39 went to the scene of occurrence
and prepared Observation Mahazar and Rough Plan. He also
enquired PWs.1 to 6 and 15 and recorded their statements.
                                                                   E
      PW41-Shahul Ahmeed (Inspector of Police) took charge
 of the case on 26.1.2004 and made further investigation. On
 28.1.2004 at about 1.45 P.M., PW41 arrested accused no.2-
 Selvaraj near Vanjipalayam railway gate. On being interrogated,
 accused no.2 voluntarily gave a confession statement which led
 to the recovery of Ropes (M010 series), Banian (M011 ), Bag
                                                                   F
.(M012), Diary (M02) and Money purse containing the photo
 of the deceased (M03) Seizure Mahazar (Ext.PS) was
 prepared. Thereafter, along with accused no.2, PW41 went to
 the scene of occurrence i.e. railway track and prepared
 Observation Mahazar (Ext.P34) and Rough Plan (Ext.P35).           G

    PW41 on the same day i.e. 28.1.2004 at 6.15 P.M.
arrested accused no.5-Gudalingam alias Lingasamy and
recorded his confession statement which led to recovery of
M01-Maruthi omni van under Ex.P37-Seizure Mahazar. On the          H
    822     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2014) 8 S:C.R


A same day, at about 8.50 P.M., PW41 arrested accused no.1-
  Paramasivam and recorded his confession statement which led
  to recovery of Lungi (M04), Shirt (M05) and Voters ID Card
  (M09) of deceased under Seizure Mahazar (Ext.P39).
  Thereafter, PW41 went to Thirupur Out-post Police Station and
B enquired PW24-Head Constable and received copy of FIR in
  Cr. No.12/2004. Thereafter, PW41-lnvestigating Officer altered
  the FIR in Criminal No. 27/2004 from Section 363 IPC to
  Sections 120-B, 364 and 302 IPC.

       On 17.2.2004, PW41 sent requisition for exhumation of
C dead body of the .deceased which was exhumed in the
  presence of PW31-Tahsildar, PW21-R.I. and other witnesses.
  PW41 seized Waist Cord with Silver Amulet under Seizure
  Mahazat (Ext.P12). Observation Mahazar (Ext.P13) was
  prepared by PW~41 in respect of the. place where body was
D buried. Rough Plan (Ext.P44) was also prepared. Blood
  samples of the dead body was taken. Blood samples of PW14
  (Manickammal)_ and PW15 (Subramani) -mother and brother
  of the deceased were taken and forwarded for DNA
  examination. PW40-Vanaja (Asst Chemical Examiner and
E Asst. Director) conducted DNA examination and opined that
  "the bone pieces etc. descril)ed belong to a human male
  individual", He further opined that"the person Mani alias Parai·
  Mani to whom the bone P.Jeces etc. belong is the biological
  offspring of Ms.A.Manickammal.'.'~PWt4;,                      ··
F
      . Ac.cused no,3-::Nirmatahd .Accu.sed no.4-Sureshkumar
  alias Suresll. ali~s' pambaU_i surrendered before Judicial
  Magistrate, Pollacht Oh 05;2.2004~ PW41 was permitted to take
  them ·to police c;:ust9dy ~ Confession statement recorded from
  accused no,3 led,tOJecqver)t of To~h· (M06), Battery {M017
G series), Knife (M0'16}, 'Huridred rupee Note [M013], Bag
  (M015) under Sei:Z:ure Mahazar (Ext.P7). Confession statement
  recorded from accused no.4 led to recovery of Watch (MOB),
  Fifty rupee Note (M014), Plastic bag (M019) under Seizure
  Mahazar (Ext.P9).
H
 PARAMSIVAM v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 823
  POLICE [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
     PW38-Judicial Magistrate No. II, Pollachi conducted Test         A
 Identification Parade in respect of Accused nos.2 and 3 on
J3.2.2004. PWs.1, 2 and 5 participated in the Test Identification
:Parade and identified the accused. On receipt of chemical
;analysis report and DNA report and after completion of due
 investigation, PW41 filed final report u/s 147, 148, 120-B, 364      B
 and 302 IPC.

     3. To substantiate the charges against the accused,
prosecution examined 42 witnesses and brought on record
Exts.P1 to P44 and Mos.1 to 18. Accused were questioned u/            C
s 313 Crl.P.C. Accused denied all the charges and pleaded
not guilty and stated that a false case is foisted against them.

      4. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence,
 the Sessions Court held that the prosecution has adduced
 cogent and. convincing evidence establishing that due to             D
 previous enmity in respect of quarrying, accused nos.1 to 3
 abducted the deceased and committed murder of the
 deceased. The Sessions Court also held that accused nos.1
-to 3 were identified in the Test Identification Parade and
 incriminating material objects recovered from them would             E
 substantiate the charges. With regard to accused nos.4 to 7
 the Sessions Court held that the prosecution failed tOestablish
 t~e guilt against them and acquitted them.

     5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants
                                                                      F
challenged the impugned judgment mainly on the following
grounds:. · ·

      (i)      There is inconsistency in the prosecution story. For
              example, the evidence of PW 15-Subramani
               brother of the deceased is contrary to the evidence    G
             . of PW1 and 2.

      (ii)   The Sessions Court failed to c0nsider the· question
             whether the prosecution has proved the fact that the
             deceased was abducted.                                   H
    824         SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2014) 8 S.C.R.


A         (iii)   There is no eye witness for the alleged murder in
                  absence of any contemporaneous evidence toi
                  establish that the body found on the railway track:
                  on Vanjipalayam is that of the deceased-mani.

          (iv)    There are contradictions with regard to exhumed
B
                  body. For example, while PW 21 stated that when
                  the body was exhumed it was found in pieces in a
                  gunny bag whereas PW 23 stated that dead body
                  was found in pieces and no dress was found on it.
c        6. On the other hand, the Prosecution relied upon the
    following circumstances to bring home the charges.

          (i)     Existence of motive.

          (ii)    Circumstance that deceased was last seen alive in
D                 the company of the appellants/accused nos. 1 to 3.

          (iii)   Death was homicidal and the body was found on
                  the railway track mutilated.

E         (iv)    Body was Identified as that of deceased through
                  DNA test.

          (v)     Arrest of the accused and recovery of incriminating
                  articles attheir instance.
F      7. PWs.3 and 6 are brothers and accused no.6-
  Nagarathinam is brother's wife of PWs.3 and 6. Deceased
  Mani alias Parai Mani took lease of PWs.3 and 6's land in S.F.
  No. 427/1 (Part) of Vadapudur village for quarrying. While the
  deceased was carrying on quarrying work, accused no.6-
G Nagarathinam and her son and daughter i.e. accused no.1-
  Paramasivam and accused no.7-Revathi objected for quarrying.
  Alleging that without any lawful right, accused no.6 was
  objecting to quarr)'ing, deceased filed suit in O.S. No. 5/2004
  on 02.1.2004 on the file of DMC, Pollachi against accused·
H no.6 and PWs.3 and 6. This is evident from Ext.P-22 pleadings
 PARAMSIVAM v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 825
  POLICE [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
in O.S. No. 5/2004, PWs.1 and 2 have spoken in one voice           A
about deceased taking quarry of lease from PWs.3 and 6 and
that accused no.6, accused no.1 and accused no.7 were raising
objection to carry out quarrying work. Evidence of PWs.3 and
6 also strengthens prosecution version about the grant of lease.
     8. Filing of suit on 02.1.2004 about two weeks prior to the   B
occurrence heightens the probability of prosecution case. In
-cases of circumstantial evidence proof of motive is material
consideration and a strong circumstance.
     9. The case of the prosecution is that deceased was last      C
seen alive in the company of the accused. Evidence of PWs.1
and 2 that accused nos.2 and 3 had taken the deceased from
his house in Chikkalampalayam. Evidence of PW9-Doraisamy
is that he saw the deceased along with accused no.1-
Paramasivam in Maruthi Omni Van Registration No. TN-23 E
                                                                   0
5951 (M01) near Kinathukadavu Checkpost. PW5-Balan
stated that the peceased had left with accused no.1 from the
quarry in Ealoorkarar thottam.
      About four days from the date of occurrence, accused nos.
 2 and 3 went to the house of the deceased asking for size,of      E
 the stones. When being asked about them, accused no.2
 disclosed his name as Selvaraj. As they appear to be strangers
 and as it was very late in the evening, deceased asked them
·to come on some other day. After four days thereafter accused
 nos.2 and 3 went to the house of the deceased and asked him       F
 to come along with them for seeing the stones. lnspite of
 disinclination of deceased, accused nos. 2 and 3 insisted the
 deceased to come along with them stating that their owner has
 come .and therefore, stones are to be seen. As· it was late in
 the evening, deceased asked his wife for torch and PW2-Kala       G
 gave him torch (M06) and deceased went along with accused
 nos.2 and 3.
    10. The evidenc~ of PWs.1 and 2 is cogent and consistent
which clearly brings home the circumstance that deceased went
along with accused nos. 2 and 3. In the Test Identification        H
    826     SUPREME CQURT REPORTS                  [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A   Parade conducted by PW38-Judicial Magistrate, PWs.1 and
    2 have also identified accused nos. 2 and 3 which would
    strengthen the stand of the prosecution.

         11. Learned counsel for the appellant raised objection with
    regard to non-mention of name of accused no.2-Selvaraj in
8
    Ext.P1-Complaint and submitted that accused no.3-Nirmat
    accompanied accused no.2 would throw serious doubts about
    the credibility of PWs.1 and 2. But from the evidence Ext.P1-
    complaint we find that PW1 has clearly stated that two persons
    had come to their house and took the deceased in Maruthi
C Omni Van. In Ext.P1-Complaint, though PW1 had expressed
    suspicion about accused nos. 1, 6 and 7, PW1 has clearly
    expressed his doubts that accused nos. 1, 6 and 7 might have
    engaged men for abducting the deceased. Such doubts
    expressed in Ext.P1-Complaint is sufficient incriminating
D circumstance against the accused nos. 2 and 3. Credibility of
    PWs.1 and 2 cannot be doubted on the ground of non-mention
    of name of accused no.2 in Ext.P1-Complaint. The evidence
    of PW9 also established that the deceased was last seen alive
    with accused no.1-Paramasivam in Maruthi Omni Van 'cTN-23
E · E 5951) near Kinathukadavu Checkpost. In his evidence, PW9
    has stated that after taking petrol for TVS-50 in a Petrol Pump
    near the Checkpost while he was proceeding along with PWS-
    Sivakumar, he saw the deceased along with accused no.1-
    Paramasivam in Maruthi Omni Van (M01) and saw the others
F inside the Van.· Since, deceased and accused no.1-
    Paramasivam were in inimical terms, PW9 wondered as to why
    accused no.1 and deceased are seen together and he asked
    PW8-Sivakumar about the same. Though, PW8-Sivakumar
    turned hostile, evidence of PW9 is trustworthy and we do not
G find any reason to take a different view.                   ·

       12. Another circumstances relied upon by the prosecution
  is evidence of PW15-Subramani (brother of the deceased) that
  accused no. 1 and another person came to the quarry to seE!
H stones. When they were crushing the stones, deceased went
PARAMSIVAM v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 827
 POLICE [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
with them to see the stones. No doubt evidence of PW15 as              A
to how deceased went with the accused might appear to be
slightly different but due to variation of time narrating the events
cannot be said in manner the PW15 narrated his statement.
We are of the view that evidence of PW15 does not make any
dent upon the consistent version of PWs.1 and 2 and the case           B
of prosecution.

     13. Dr. Perimaladevi-PW33 conducted autopsy and noted
the following injuries:

            Crush injury over the.front of head and part of brain      C
            comes out [liquified].

            Fracture of left arm bone [upper] and left shoulder
            joint bones.

            Fracture of right upper arm bone and cut off from          D
            the shoulder joint.

             Fracture of left leg bones [middle].

             Fracture of right thigh bone and leg bones.               E

      14. Dr. Perimaladevi opined that deceased died of 'shock
and haemorrhage' due to multiple injuries and head injuries
about 70-80 hours prior to the autopsy. Since identity of the
body was not known, body was buried in Thirupur
Chellandiamman burial ground. Later at the request of                  F
Investigating Officer, body was exhumed in the presence of
PW21-Tahsildar. After the body was exhumed, PW34-
Dr.Vallinayagam collected the blood for DNA test. Blood
samples of PW14-Manickammal and PW15-Subramani
(mother and brother of the deceased) were also collected. After        G
conducting DNA test and upon analysis of results of DNA typing
for the samples, PW40-Asst. Director gave Ext.P32-Report and
opined that "bone pieces etc. described belong to a human
male individual". PW40 further opined that "the person Mani
                                                                       H
    828      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                    [20.14] 8 S.C.R.


A   alias Paraimani to whom the bone pieces etc. belong is the
    biological offspring of Ms. A. Manickammal.". Evidence of
    PW40 would amply establish identity of body recovered from
    the railway track as that of the deceased Mani alias Parai M~ni
    who is the son of PW14-Manickammal.
B
         15. When deceased is shown to be abducted, it is for the
    abductors to explain how they dealt with the abducted victim.
    In the absence of explanation, Court is to draw inference that
    abductors a~e the murderers.
c         16. In State of WB. v. Mir Mohammad Omar and others
    (2000) 8 SCC 382, this Court held:

         "34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that
         Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him
D        out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened
         to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered
         within a short time after the abduction the permitted
         reasoning process would ena61e the Court to draw the
         presumption that the f3CCused have murdered him. Such
         inferem;:e .can b,e disrupted if the accused would tell the
E
       . Court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he
         was in their custody. n '

         17. In Sucha Singh v. State of Punjab (2001) 4 SCC 375,
    this Court held:                                             ·
F
         "15. The abductors alone could tell the court as to what
         happened to the deceased after they were abducted.
       · When the abductors withheld that information from the
         court there is every j"stification. for drawing the inference,
G        in the light of all the preceding and succeeding
         circumstances adverted to above, that the abductors are
         the murderers of the deceased."

          "19. We pointed out _that Section 106 of the Evidence Act
          is' not Intended ·to. relieve the prosecution of its· burden to
H
  PARAMSIVAM v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 829
   POLICE [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
     prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt,         A
     but the section would apply to cases where the
     prosecution· has succeeded in proving facts for which a
     reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the
     existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by
     virtue of special knowledge regarding such facts failed to      B
     offer.any explanation which might drive the court to draw
     a different inference."

     "21. We are mindful of what is frequently happening
     during these days. Persons are kidnapped in the sight           C
     of others and are forcibly taken out of the sight of all
     others and later the kidnapped are killed. If a legal
     principle is to be laid down that for the murder of such
     kidnapped there should necessarily be independent
     evidencf! apart from the circumstances enumerated
     above; we would be providing a safe jurisprudence for           D
     protecting such criminal activities. India cannot now afford
     to lay down any such legal principle insulating the
     marauders of their activities of killing kidnapped
     innocents outside the ken of others." .
                                                                     E
        18. In the present case, the prosecution brought on record
 .the evidences that accused no.1 to 3 had abducted the
  deceased. Therefore, it is accused nos.1to3 alone knew what
rhappened to him as the deceased was found murdered within
'a short time after abduction. The accused nos.1 to 3 have failed    F
 :to give any explanation and the Court rightly draw-.presumption
  that the accused have murdered the deceased Mani alias Parai
. Mani.

      19. The prosecution relied upon the statement of accused
,persons leading to discovery of facts as envisaged uls. 27 of       G
·Indian Evidence Act. Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were arrested
 on 28.1.2004 at different times. Confession statement of
 accused no.1 led to recovery of Voter ID Card of Mani (M09)
'and other articles i.e. MOs.4 and 5. Confession statement
 recorded from accused no.2-Selvaraj alias Selvan] led to            H
    830       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2014] 8 S.C.R.


A recovery of Pocket Diary (M02), Money purse (M03) with photo
  of deceased and other articles-MOs.10 to 12. Confession
  statement of accused no.5 Driver Lingasamy led to seizure of
  Taxi M01-Maruthi Omni Van (TN-23 E 5951). Accused no.3-
  Nirmal and accused· no.4-Sureshkumar alias Suresh alias.
B Pambatti were surrendered before the eourt and on
  application, PW41-lnvestigating Officer .took them for police
  custody. Confession statement recorded from accused no.3 led
  to recovery of Torch light(M06) which was handed over to the
  deceased by PW2 at the time when he left the house. PW2 also
c identified M06 as the torch light handed over by. her at the time
  when the deceased left the house. Recovery of various articles
  of the deceased from accused nos.1 to 3 is a strong
  incriminating circumstance connecting the appellants with the
  crime.

D         20. Section 27 of the Evidence Act reads as under:

          "27. How much of information received from accused
          may be proved.-Provided that, when any fact is deposed
          to as discovered in consequence of information received
E         from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of
          a police officer, so much of such information, whether it.
          amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to
          the fact thereby discovered, may be proved." _

F       21. In Anil alias Raju Namdev Patil v. Administration of
    Daman & Diu, Daman and another, (2006) 13 SCC 36, this
    Court held:

          "23. The information disclosed by the evidences leading
          to the discovery of a fact which is based on mental state 1
G         of affair of the accused is, thus, admissible in evidence."

      22. This Court in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh,
  (1999) 4 SCC 370 OJ?ined that When an object is discovered
  from an isolated place pointed out by the accused, the same
H would be admissible in evidence.
 PARAMSIVAM v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 831
  POLICE [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA, J.]
    23. We have noticed the confessional statement of the              A
appellants, on the basis of which the discovery of material
evidence took place.

     24. From the evidence on record, we find that the
Prosecution was successful in bringing on record the
                                                                       B
circumstantial evidences i.e. existence of motive; the
circumstances in which the deceased was last seen alive in the
company of appellants-accused nos.1 to 3; death was
homicidal and body was found on the railway track mutilated;
the body of the deceased was identified through DNA test; on           C
arrest of accused incriminating articles were recovered.

       25. Upon analysis of evidence, we are of the view that
  prosecution .~as succeeded in proving the facts that the
  accused .nos.1 to 3 took away deceased Mani aliasParai Mani.
  What happened thereafter to deceased is especially within the        D
  knowledge of the appellants-accused nos.1 to 3. It was for the
  appellants-accused nos. 1 to 3 to explain what happened to
  Mani alias Parai Mani after they took him away but they failed
  to explain the same. Mani alias Parai Mani was found dead
  immediately thereafter. Therefore, it is clear that the accused      E
  nos.1 to 3 who abducted deceased Mani alias Parai Mani
  intentionally withhold the information from the Court and,
•therefore,· there is every justification for drawing inference that
' appellants-accused nos.1 to 3 murdered Mani alias Parai Mani.
1
  Stand of the appellants is a bare denial of prosecution case.        F
 'In the absence of any explanation, the inevitable inference is
  that appellants are responsible fo11>the death of deceased Mani
  alias Parai Mani. Thus, the guilt of the appellants-accused nos.
  1 to 3 has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. We fine
  no merit in .this appeal arid the same is accordingly dismissed.     G
-Devika Gujral                                     Appeal dismissed.