JOHN ANTHONISAMY @ JOHN Vs STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [2023] 1 S.C.R. 279

[advtanmoy]

Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 r/w s.201 – Murder – Circumstantial evidence – Purported extra-judicial confession – Effect – Five accused including appellant ( A -1) – Prosecution case that in pursuance of a conspiracy, the accused persons killed the deceased- Circumstantial
evidence – Purported extra-judicial confession – Effect – Five
accused including appellant (A-1) – Prosecution case that in
pursuance of a conspiracy, the accused persons killed the deceased
and stole/took away his car – PW11 (Sub inspector) closed the case
as undetected – However, case was subsequently re-opened and
investigation initiated by police witness (PW30) on basis of
confessional statement made in letter allegedly written by appellant
to PW22 – Trial Court convicted appellant u/s.302 r/w s.201 IPC –
Conviction confirmed by High Court – Challenge to – Held: It was
contended by appellant that he was convicted on confessional
statement in his letter /communication to PW22 and the instant case
being a case of circumstantial evidence, therefore, unless and until
the complete chain of events were proved and established, he could
not have been convicted on confessional statement – However, High
Court did not give much weightage so far as the letter /communication
by appellant addressed to PW22 is concerned and therefore, it
cannot be said that appellant was convicted on the confessional
statement made in the letter /communication concerned – Further,
as rightly observed by the High Court, by other circumstances the
prosecution established and proved that the deceased was killed
after his car was stolen/taken away by the appellant – First strong
circumstance against the appellant was that the dead body was
exhumed from the place identified by appellant and super imposition
test and DNA examination proved that the dead body was that of
the deceased – Second strong circumstance against the appellant
was that the car was recovered from the place and the person
disclosed by the appellant – Another circumstance against the
appellant was that the car engine and gear box sold by him was
recovered from PW-17 on disclosure statement made by appellant –
Conviction of appellant accordingly confirmed.

[See the full post at: JOHN ANTHONISAMY @ JOHN Vs STATE, REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [2023] 1 S.C.R. 279]

[Author]

Posts