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

Date of decision : 19-01-2023 | Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL/466/2017

Judge Name: M.R. SHAH,C.T. RAVIKUMAR

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

6. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused
as well as the State. We have gone through the findings recorded by the
learned Trial Court as well as the High Court while holding the appellant
– accused No. 1 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302
and 201 of IPC.
6.1 It is the case on behalf of the appellant – accused No. 1
that he has been convicted on the confessional statement
and therefore, in case of circumstantial evidence and unless
and until the complete chain of events were proved and
established, he could not have been convicted on
confessional statement.
However, from the judgment(s) and order(s) passed by the
learned Trial Court as well as the High Court, it cannot be
said that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of
confessional statement. In the present case, there is no
confession by the accused that he committed the offence,
which has been relied upon by the Court. It is required to
be noted that the so-called communication by the accused
No. 1 addressed to PW-22 is as such not believed by the
High Court being secondary evidence and the same has
not been proved. Therefore, as such the High Court has

not given much weightage so far as the letter/communication
is concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant
– accused No. 1 has been convicted on the confessional
statement made in the letter/communication.
6.2 However, at the same time, it can be seen that the
communication/letter received by Police on 30.12.2007 was
the cause for reopening of the case, as earlier the case
was closed on 04.02.2007 as untraceable. That thereafter,
the actual investigation began by PW-30. That thereafter,
during investigation A-1 disclosed the place where he had
buried the dead body of the deceased. The dead body was
exhumed from the place identified by A-1. Thus, it was a
case of recovery of the dead body at the instance of the
accused from the place which was disclosed by the accused
who can be said to be in exclusive knowledge of the place
where the dead body was buried. That thereafter, the super
imposition test was conducted and the DNA examination
was conducted on the bones and the skull and it was proved
that the dead body was that of the deceased. This is the
first strong circumstance against the appellant – A-1 which
has led to his conviction.
6.3 That thereafter, even the car which was driven by the
deceased at the relevant time was recovered from PW-16
which was at the instance of the accused himself. That
there is a recovery of car driven by the deceased from the
place and the person disclosed by the accused No. 1 –
appellant. The prosecution has successfully proved the same
by examining PW-16, a person to whom the stolen car was
sold by the appellant – accused No. 1. This is the second
strong circumstance against the appellant – accused
No. 1.
6.4 That thereafter, the prosecution has been successful in
proving that the engine and gear box which were sold by
the appellant – accused No. 1 was recovered from PW-17.
The engine and gear box of the stolen car were found from
the custody of PW-17 on the disclosure statement made by
A-1. Though, PW-17 has turned hostile, however, at the
same time, the recovery of engine and gear box from PW-17 which were recovered on the disclosure statement made
by A-1 has been established and proved by the prosecution
by examining Police witness – PW-30, we see no reason to
disbelieve PW-30 on the aforesaid. This is another
circumstance against the appellant – accused No. 1. Thus
on the basis of the aforesaid strong circumstances when
the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court has
convicted the accused – appellant for the offences under
Sections 302 and 201 of IPC, we see no reason to interfere
with the same in exercise of powers under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India.