# Case Details Perumal Raja @ Perumal v. State, Rep. by Inspector of Police

- **Citation:** 2024 INSC 13
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2024-01-03
- **Bench:** Sanjiv Khanna, S. V. N. Bhatti
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/case-details-perumal-raja-perumal-v-state-rep-by-inspector-of-police-37493
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Accused not formally arrested at the time of giving information if
can be deemed to be in the 'custody' of the police, admissibility
of evidence in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Conviction and
sentence of the appellant u/ss.302 and 201, Penal Code, 1860,
if justified.
Headnotes
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27 - "in the custody of a police officer"
- Interpretation - Case based on circumstantial evidence
- Appellant was taken into custody during the course of
investigation for the murder of his Uncle - However, he made a
disclosure statement - Appellant along with other co-accused
had murdered his uncle's son-deceased (appellant's cousin)
who was missing for months and his body was first dumped
in the sump tank and later retrieved, cut into two parts,
put in sack bags, and thrown in the river/canal - Appellant
subsequently arrested in the present case - On the basis of
the disclosure statement, parts of the dead body and sack
bags were recovered - Other articles were also recovered -
Appellant's conviction and sentence u/ss.302 and 201, Penal
Code, 1860, challenged:
Held: The pre-requisite of police custody, within the meaning of
s.27, ought to be read pragmatically and not formalistically or
euphemistically - "custody" u/s.27 does not mean formal custody
- It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance
by the police- Even if the accused was not formally arrested at
the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed,
for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police - Words
"person accused of an offence" and "in the custody of a police
88
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
officer" in s.27 are separated by a comma and thus, have to be
read distinctively - The wide and pragmatic interpretation of the
term "police custody" is supported by the fact that if a narrow
or technical view is taken, it will be very easy for the police to
delay the time of filing the FIR and arrest, and thereby evade the
contours of ss.25 to 27 - A person giving word of mouth information
to police, which may be used as evidence against him, may be
deemed to have submitted himself to the "custody" of the police
officer - In the present case, the disclosure statement was made
by the appellant when he was detained in another case relating
to the murder of his Uncle- He was subsequently arrested in the
present case - Body parts of the deceased were recovered on the
pointing out of appellant in his disclosure statement - Deceased had
been missing for months and was untraceable - His whereabouts
were unknown- The perpetrator(s) were also unknown - It is only
consequent to the disclosure statement by the appellant that the
police came to know that the Deceased had been murdered - The
homicidal death of Deceased, the disclosure statement and the
consequent recoveries of the motorcycle and other belongings at
the behest of the appellant proved beyond doubt - These facts,
in the absence of any other material to doubt them, establish that
the appellant committed murder of Deceased - The presence
of motive, inter se family property disputes, reinforces the said
conclusion - Conviction of the appellant upheld. [Paras 25, 28,
29, 31, 41]
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.25-27 - s.27, an exception to ss.25,
26 - Doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events:
Held: s.27 is an exception to ss.25 and 26 - s.27 makes that part
of the statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in
consequence of the information received from a person accused
of an offence, to the extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby
discovered, admissible in evidence against the accused - The fact
which is discovered as a consequence of the information given is
admissible in evidence - Further, the fact discovered must lead
to recovery of a physical object and only that information which
distinctly relates to that discovery can be proved - s.27 is based
on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events- a fact is
actually discovered in cons

## Text

_Characters 0–39,950 of 60,036. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39950 for what follows._

* Author
[2024] 1 S.C.R. 87 : 2024 INSC 13
Case Details
Perumal Raja @ Perumal
v.
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police
(Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 863 of 2019)
03 January 2024
[Sanjiv Khanna* and S. V. N. Bhatti, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Accused not formally arrested at the time of giving information if
can be deemed to be in the 'custody' of the police, admissibility
of evidence in terms of s.27, Evidence Act, 1872. Conviction and
sentence of the appellant u/ss.302 and 201, Penal Code, 1860,
if justified.
Headnotes
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27 - "in the custody of a police officer"
- Interpretation - Case based on circumstantial evidence
- Appellant was taken into custody during the course of
investigation for the murder of his Uncle - However, he made a
disclosure statement - Appellant along with other co-accused
had murdered his uncle's son-deceased (appellant's cousin)
who was missing for months and his body was first dumped
in the sump tank and later retrieved, cut into two parts,
put in sack bags, and thrown in the river/canal - Appellant
subsequently arrested in the present case - On the basis of
the disclosure statement, parts of the dead body and sack
bags were recovered - Other articles were also recovered -
Appellant's conviction and sentence u/ss.302 and 201, Penal
Code, 1860, challenged:
Held: The pre-requisite of police custody, within the meaning of
s.27, ought to be read pragmatically and not formalistically or
euphemistically - "custody" u/s.27 does not mean formal custody
- It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance
by the police- Even if the accused was not formally arrested at
the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed,
for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police - Words
"person accused of an offence" and "in the custody of a police
88
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
officer" in s.27 are separated by a comma and thus, have to be
read distinctively - The wide and pragmatic interpretation of the
term "police custody" is supported by the fact that if a narrow
or technical view is taken, it will be very easy for the police to
delay the time of filing the FIR and arrest, and thereby evade the
contours of ss.25 to 27 - A person giving word of mouth information
to police, which may be used as evidence against him, may be
deemed to have submitted himself to the "custody" of the police
officer - In the present case, the disclosure statement was made
by the appellant when he was detained in another case relating
to the murder of his Uncle- He was subsequently arrested in the
present case - Body parts of the deceased were recovered on the
pointing out of appellant in his disclosure statement - Deceased had
been missing for months and was untraceable - His whereabouts
were unknown- The perpetrator(s) were also unknown - It is only
consequent to the disclosure statement by the appellant that the
police came to know that the Deceased had been murdered - The
homicidal death of Deceased, the disclosure statement and the
consequent recoveries of the motorcycle and other belongings at
the behest of the appellant proved beyond doubt - These facts,
in the absence of any other material to doubt them, establish that
the appellant committed murder of Deceased - The presence
of motive, inter se family property disputes, reinforces the said
conclusion - Conviction of the appellant upheld. [Paras 25, 28,
29, 31, 41]
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss.25-27 - s.27, an exception to ss.25,
26 - Doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events:
Held: s.27 is an exception to ss.25 and 26 - s.27 makes that part
of the statement which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in
consequence of the information received from a person accused
of an offence, to the extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby
discovered, admissible in evidence against the accused - The fact
which is discovered as a consequence of the information given is
admissible in evidence - Further, the fact discovered must lead
to recovery of a physical object and only that information which
distinctly relates to that discovery can be proved - s.27 is based
on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events- a fact is
actually discovered in consequence of the information given, which
results in recovery of a physical object - The facts discovered and
the recovery is an assurance that the information given by a person
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
89
PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL v.
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
accused of the offence can be relied - However, s.27 does not
lay down the principle that discovery of a fact is to be equated to
the object produced or found. [Paras 19, 22]
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27 - Conditions necessary for
bringing s.27 into operation, discussed - Facts proved by
the prosecution - Duty of the Court - Evidence produced in
terms of s.27 - Evidentiary value:
Held: The facts proved by the prosecution, particularly the
admissible portion of the statement of the accused, would give
rise to two alternative hypotheses, (i) that the accused had
himself deposited the physical items which were recovered; or
(ii) only the accused knew that the physical items were lying at
that place - The second hypothesis is wholly compatible with the
innocence of the accused, whereas the first would be a factor
to show involvement of the accused in the offence - The court
has to analyse which of the hypotheses should be accepted in a
particular case - s.27 is frequently used by the police, and the
courts must be vigilant about its application to ensure credibility
of evidence, as the provision is vulnerable to abuse - However,
this does not mean that in every case invocation of s.27 must
be seen with suspicion and is to be discarded as perfunctory
and unworthy of credence - Evidentiary value to be attached on
evidence produced before the court in terms of s.27 cannot be
codified or put in a straightjacket formula - It depends upon the
facts and circumstances of the case - A holistic and inferential
appreciation of evidence is required to be adopted in a case of
circumstantial evidence. [Paras 23, 24]
Evidence Act, 1872- ss.24-27 - "accused person", "a person
accused of any offence":
Held: The bar u/s.25 applies equally whether or not the person
against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal trial was
in custody at the time of making the confession - For the ban to
be effective the person need not have been accused of an offence
when he made the confession - The reason is that the expression
"accused person" in s.24 and the expression "a person accused
of any offence" in ss.26 and 27 have the same connotation, and
describe the person against whom evidence is sought to be led
in a criminal proceeding - The adjectival clause "accused of any
offence" is, therefore, descriptive of the person against whom a
90
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
confessional statement made by him is declared not provable,
and does not predicate a condition of that person at the time of
making the statement. [Para 26]
Criminal Law - Appellant was accused of the murder of his
Uncle and his son - Acquitted in the case relating to the murder
of Uncle - Judgment of acquittal - Evidentiary value, if any:
Held: Except for the fact that the appellant was taken into custody
during the course of investigation for the murder of his Uncle and
thereupon his disclosure statement (Exhibit P-37) was recorded,
there is no connection between the two offences - Murders were
committed on two different dates - Murder trial of his Uncle
was primarily based upon an entirely different set of evidence -
Conviction of the appellant is sustainable in view of the evidence
placed on record in the present case - The judgment of acquittal
would not qualify as relevant and of evidentiary value so as to
acquit the appellant in the present case. [Para 42]
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.27 - Disclosure statement (Exhibit
P-37) made by the appellant, convicted - Acquittal of the coaccused - Application of s.27:
Held: Acquittal of the co-accused was for want of evidence against
them - At best, they were found in possession of the articles
connected with the crime on the basis of the disclosure statement
(Exhibit P-37) made by the appellant - s.27 of the Evidence Act
could not have been applied to the other co-accused as the provision
pertains to information that distinctly relates to the discovery of
a 'fact' that was previously unknown, as opposed to fact already
disclosed or known - Once information is given by an accused,
the same information cannot be used, even if voluntarily made
by a co-accused who is in custody - s.27 does apply to joint
disclosures, but this is not one such case - This was precisely the
reason given by the trial court to acquit the co-accused - Further,
even if Section 8 of the Evidence Act was to apply, it would not
have been possible to convict the co-accused - The trial court
rightly held other co-accused not guilty. [Para 43]
Evidence - Case based on circumstantial evidence - Five
golden principles to be satisfied as laid down in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88
- Conditions to be fulfilled before the false explanation or a
false defence can be used by the Court as an additional link
to lend an assurance to the court, stated - A distinction has
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
91
PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL v.
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
to be drawn between incomplete chain of circumstances and
a circumstance after a chain is complete and the defence or
explanation given by the accused is found to be false, in which
event the said falsehood is added to reinforce the conclusion
of the court. [Paras 37, 38]
Evidence Act, 1872 - s.106 - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - s.313:
Held: Appellant in his statement u/s.313 denied all accusations
without furnishing any explanation regarding his knowledge of the
places from which the dead body was recovered - The failure of
the appellant to present evidence on his behalf or to offer any
cogent explanation regarding the recovery of the dead body by
virtue of his special knowledge must lead to a reasonable adverse
inference, by application of the principle u/s.106 of the Evidence Act
thus forming an additional link in the chain of circumstances - The
additional link further affirms the conclusion of guilt as indicated
by the prosecution evidence. [Para 40]
Words and Phrases - 'distinctly' in s.27, Evidence Act, 1872:
Held: The word 'distinctly' is used to limit and define the scope
of the information and means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly' or
'unmistakably' - Only that part of the information which is clear,
immediate and a proximate cause of discovery is admissible.
[Para 22]
List of Citations and Other References
State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (1961) 1 SCR
14 - followed.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan
Guru [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 79:(2005) 11 SCC 600;
Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [1976] 1
SCR 715:(1976) 1 SCC 828; Aghnoo Nagesia v. State
of Bihar [1966] SCR 134:AIR 1966 SC 119; Dharam
Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2014] 8 SCR
650:(2014) 5 SCC 509; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.
State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88:(1984) 4 SCC
116 - relied on.
State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy [1996] 8
Suppl. SCR 808:(1997) 1 SCC 272; A.N.Vekatesh
and Anr. v. State of Karnataka (2005) 7 SCC 714;
92
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR
215:(2000) 1 SCC 471; Harivadan Babubhai Patel v.
State of Gujarat [2013] 10 SCR 889:(2013) 7 SCC 45;
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra [2014]
14 SCR 961:(2015) 1 SCC 253; State of Maharashtra
v. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and Ors. [2000] 3 SCR
880:(2000) 6 SCC 269; Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of
Assam [2013] 3 SCR 801:(2013) 7 SCC 417; Rajesh
& Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2023 SCC OnLine
SC 1202; Khatri Hemraj Amulakh v. State of Gujarat
(1972) 3 SCC 671; Vikram Singh and Ors. v. State of
Punjab [2010] 2 SCR 22:(2010) 3 SCC 56; Sandeep
v. State of U.P. [2012] 5 SCR 952:(2012) 6 SCC 107;
Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1952) 2 SCC
71; Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar (1955) 2 SCR
570; Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community and
Anr. v. State of Maharashtra and Anr., [2004] 6 Suppl.
SCR 1054:(2005) 2 SCC 673; Union of India and
Anr. v. Raghubir Singh (Dead) By Lrs., [1989] 3 SCR
316:(1989) 2 SCC 754; Trimurthi Fragrances (P) Ltd.
v. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1247 - referred to.
List of Acts
Evidence Act, 1872; Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
List of Keywords
Circumstantial evidence; Disclosure statement; Police custody;
Formal custody; Doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events;
Special knowledge; Adverse inference; Additional link in chain of
circumstances.
Other Case Details Including Impugned Order and
Appearances
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Special Leave Petition
(Criminal) No.863 of 2019.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No.280 of 2016.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
93
PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL v.
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Appearances:
Col R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., D. Kumanan, Raghav Gupta, Y.
William Vinoth Kumar, Advs. for the Appellant.
Aravindh S., Abbas, Advs. for the Respondent.
Judgment / Order of The Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Leave granted.
2.
The impugned judgment1 by the High Court of Judicature at Madras
affirms the conviction of the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal for
murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 18602 and Section 201 of the IPC, by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Puducherry in SC No. 22 of 20143, in the charge sheet
arising from the First Information Report4 No. 80 of 2008 registered
on 24.04.2008 in Police Station5 Odiansalai, District - Puducherry.
3.
The appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal stands sentenced to
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under
Section 302 of the IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years
and fine of Rs.3,000/- for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC.
4.
The other co-accused, namely, Saravanan @ Krishnan, Mohan
@ Mohankumar, and Ravi @ Ravichandran were acquitted by the
trial court, which acquittal has become final. One 'N' was tried as a
juvenile and acquitted. On 15.02.2013, the case of another co-accused
- Chella @ Mugundhan was split up since he was absconding.
Subsequently, vide judgment dated 04.06.2019, which has been
placed on record as additional evidence, Chella @ Mukundhan has
been acquitted.
5.
The prosecution case in brief is as follows:
1
Dated 31.08.2016 passed in Criminal Appeal No.280/2016.
2
For short, "IPC".
3
Dated 07.04.2016.
4
For short, "FIR".
5
 For short, "PS".
94
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(i)
On 20.04.2008, Rajaram, who was settled in France, returned
to Puducherry as his son Rajini @ Rajinikanth, who was living
in India, had gone missing.
(ii)
On 20.04.2008, Rajaram had approached PS Odiansalai,
Puducherry, and made an oral complaint stating that when he
had opened his house No. 13, Chinna Vaikkal Street, Puducherry,
he had found articles to be scattered all over the place. His
motorcycle was missing. He had suspected that his son - Rajini
@ Rajinikanth and his sister's husband Krishnamurthy could
have taken the bike. He requested the Police to make inquiries.
However, in spite of being asked, he did not make any written
complaint. He stated that he was exhausted and would come
back to lodge written complaint afterwards.
(iii) Next day on 21.04.2008, Rajaram was murdered. FIR No. 204 of
2008 was registered at PS Grand Bazaar, District - Puducherry
under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the IPC read with
Section 149 of the IPC.
(iv) On 24.04.2008, Arumugam, father of Rajaram, had made a
written complaint at Odiansalai PS, Puducherry that his grandson
Rajini @ Rajinikanth was missing. The complaint was registered
as Diary No. 80 of 2008 for a 'missing man' and was taken up
for investigation.
(v)
The appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal, son of Krishnamurthy
(husband of the sister of Rajaram), was detained and taken
into custody during the course of investigation in FIR No. 204
of 2008 for murder of Rajaram.
(vi) On 25.04.2008, the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal made
a disclosure statement (Exhibit P-37).6
(vii) The appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal, along with other
co-accused, had committed murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth
on 23.11.2007 at Rajaram's house at Chinna Vaikkal Street,
Puducherry. His dead body was thrown in the sump tank located
in the same house.
6
We shall be subsequently referring to the admissible portions of the disclosure statement under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and also to a limited extent in terms of Section 8 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 1872.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
95
PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL v.
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(viii) The appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal had also removed
various belongings from the same house, including iron box,
home theatre, CD player, documents of the house, motorcycle,
RC book, key, Rajini @ Rajinikanth's passport, Rajini @
Rajinikanth's passport size photograph, birth registration of the
grandmother, ration card, etc.
(ix) Later on, the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal, and other
co-accused, decided to remove the dead body of Rajini @
Rajinikanth from the sump tank as they had learnt that Rajaram
was returning to India as his son Rajini @ Rajinikanth was
missing.
(x)
Accordingly, the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal had
bought a knife and sack bags. They opened the sump tank
and took out Rajini @ Rajinikanth's body, which was in a
decomposed state. They had cut Rajini @ Rajinikanth's body
into two pieces and put it in two sack bags. The knife and rope
were put in another sack bag. The three sack bags were taken
by them from Chinna Vaikkal Street, and after passing through
Gandhi Street they threw the sack bags in the canal/river from
the Uppanaru Bridge near the railway crossing.
(xi) On the basis of the disclosure statement (Exhibit P-37), the sack
bags with the decomposed dead body of Rajini @ Rajinikanth
were recovered on 26.04.2008 from the Uppanaru canal/river.
Knife was also recovered.
(xii) The body parts which were in a decomposed state were sent
for post mortem, which was conducted by Dr. S. Diwakar (PW24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine,
Government General Hospital, Puducherry on 26.04.2008.
(xiii) On 30.04.2008, eight articles were recovered from the water
sump tank at the house of the deceased, namely, gloves, lower
jaw, rib, cervical vertebrae, tarsal and metatarsal, small and big
size bone pieces, and knee cap.
(xiv) The skull recovered from the canal/river and the lower part of the
jaw recovered from the sump tank were sent for superimposition
test to ascertain whether they belong to the deceased Rajini
@ Rajinikanth. C. Pushparani, Scientific Assistant Grade II,
96
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
Anthropology Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai,
who had deposed as PW-29, proves the superimposition test
report dated 20.01.2009 (Exhibit P-25), which confirms that the
skull and mandible were of the deceased - Rajini @ Rajinikanth.
(xv) On the basis of the disclosure statement, various articles,
including the motorcycle, ignition key, original RC book were
recovered from the co-accused Mohan Kumar @ Mohan and
a juvenile.
(xvi) The motive for the crime was inter se family property disputes
and the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal's desire to acquire
and become owner of the property No. 13, Chinna Vaikkal
Street, Puducherry.
6.
Several public witnesses turned hostile and did not support the
prosecution case. This includes Arumugam (PW-20), the grandfather
of the deceased Rajini @ Rajinikanth, who had filed the 'missing
man' complaint for Rajini @ Rajinikanth, vide Diary No. 80 of 2008.
However, Arumugam (PW-20) did accept that his son, Rajaram,
who was living abroad had come home when he was murdered
on 21.04.2008. Arumugam (PW-20) also accepts that his grandson
Rajini @ Rajinikanth had not attended crematorial rites of his father
Rajaram and was missing.
7.
Narayanasamy (PW-12), then head constable, PS Odiansalai, has
testified that he had received the oral complaint of Rajaram on
20.04.2008, in connection with the scattered articles in his house,
and the missing motorcycle. Rajaram had assumed that his son
Rajini @ Rajinikanth could have taken it away.
8.
Kaniyakumaran (PW-10), involved in real estate business, did not
specifically implicate the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal, but
has accepted that Punitha (PW-3), a relative of the deceased Rajini
@ Rajinikanth, had tried to sell the property in Kurumbapet. Reliance
can be also placed on the documentary evidence to establish that
the property in question in the name of Rajaram was dealt with by
Porkilai (PW-4), mother of the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal.
In support, the following documents are relied:
(i)
sale deed in favour of Rajaram executed on 26.06.1990 (Exhibit
P-66);
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
97
PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL v.
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
(ii)
sale agreement between Porkilai (PW-4) and accused no.5 -
Ravi @ Ravichandran executed on May, 2007 (Exhibit P-66);
(iii) release deed in favour of Rajaram by Porkilai (PW-4), executed
on 27.06.1990 (Exhibit P-68);
(iv) sale agreement in favour of Thangaveni Ammal, mother of
Rajaram, executed on 19.08.1981 (Exhibit P-69).
9.
Chinta Kodanda Rao (PW-30), Inspector of Police, PS Grand Bazaar,
the investigating officer in FIR No. 204 of 2008 relating to the murder
of Rajaram by unknown persons, has testified on the disclosure
statement made by the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal (Exhibit
P-37). The relevant portion of the disclosure statement reads:
"...myself and xxx pull Rajni's xxx, put him in the sump
tank near the bathroom and closed it...
...took xxx, Iron box, Home theatre, xxx, xxx, rental
documents of my uncle's house at Chittankudi, Hero Honda
CD Dawn motorcycle, RC book and key, Rajini's passport
book, Rajini's passport size photo, birth registration of
grandmother, family ration card of uncle and the copy of
documents written in English, bunch of keys of the house
and my uncle Ranjith's notebook, xxx xxx xxx, took Hero
Honda CD Dawn motorbike of my uncle Rajaram.....one
bag was put by Mohan xxx xxx xxx the house of Mohan
nearby to the Tollgate of Ariyankuppam, kept 2 bags in
Mohan's house...
...I, immediately, went to N (name withheld) house and
gave him document, ration card, bunch of keys, Rajini's
passport, by keeping them in Ranjith notebook and stated
to keep them safe...
...I took the already kept 3 sack bags, rope, curry knife,
showed the sump tank to xxx. When he opened the cover
of the sump tank, he bend down and lifted the hand of the
body of Rajini, who was already killed and put in the sump
by us, since Rajini's body was in decomposed stage, his
hand had alone come. I put the hand in sack bag. Then we
tied rope in chest, myself and xxx pulled the body outside
from sump. Then, head has come alone. I put head in the
98
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
sack bag. Then xxx took knife from me and cut Rajini's
body into two pieces and put them in two sack bags, then
put knife and xxx in another sack bag and kept the sack
bags near kitchen, then xxx closed the sump...
...via Chinnavaikal Street and Gandhi Street, turned on
the left side of the street, in front of small clock tower,
via Varnarapettai Billu Shop, on the centre of the bridge
of Railway Crossing on the left side, threw the two bags,
containing the decomposed body of Rajini, on the right
side threw the sack bag, containing knife and xxx...
...Also, I gave statement that if I was taken, I would identify
the Chinnavaikal street, which is the place of occurrence,
my maternal uncle's house which is in the same street..
the place where I had left the motor cycle of my (nc) and
the place where I had put the body of Rajini... "
10. On the aspect of the recovery of two nylon sack bags with body
parts, we have affirmative depositions of Chinta Kodanda Rao (PW30), Inspector of Police, PS Grand Bazaar, public witness Devadass
(PW-21) and Satyamurthy (PW-11). The recovery was photographed
by Selvaganapathy (PW-26), police photographer vide photographs
marked Exhibit P-19. The recovery was duly recorded in the rough
sketch plan (Exhibit P-30) and the mahazar (Exhibit P-31).
11. On 29.04.2008, accused no. 4 - Mohan Kumar @ Mohan was
arrested. On the same day, stolen items including, the motorcycle
and ignition key of motorcycle, original registration book, insurance
certificate of the motorcycle, iron box, home theatre and speaker
box belonging to the deceased were recovered, as recorded vide
seizure mahazar (Exhibits P-44, P-45, P-46 and P-47).
12. On 30.04.2008, eight articles were recovered from the water sump
tank at the house of the deceased, namely, gloves, lower jaw, rib,
cervical vertebrae, tarsal and metatarsal, small and big size bone
pieces, and knee cap. T. Bairavasamy (PW-32), Circle Inspector, PS
Odiansalai has deposed about the recovery and proved the Mahazar
(Exhibit P-48). The recovery was photographed by Subburayan (PW25), police photographer vide photographs marked Exhibit P-18 and
duly witnessed by public witness Devadass (PW-21).
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
99
PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL v.
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
13. To determine the identity of the deceased person, some of the
body parts were sent for a superimposition test to C. Pushparani
(PW-29), who was working as a Scientific Assistant Grade II,
Anthropology Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai.
She has deposed about having received the case properties,
consisting of a skull with mandible on 10.09.2008. The mandible
was attached with the skull by means of a spring. For the purpose
of identification, she had two identical colour photographs of a
male individual sent to her in a sealed envelope as Item Nos.
2 and 3. The photographs were enlarged to the size of a selfportrait. Using the computer aided video superimposition technique,
she had examined the skull and mandible viz. the photographs.
For the purposes of the examination, the flesh thickness and
the anthroposcopic landmarks in the face were also taken into
consideration. C. Pushparani (PW-29), Scientific Assistant Grade
II, Anthropology Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai
opined that the landmarks on the face matched well with those of
the skull. She submitted her forensic report dated 20.01.2009 with
analysis on the anthroposcopy and superimposition test (Exhibit
P-25). The skull, as per C. Pushparani (PW-29), Scientific Assistant
Grade II, Anthropology Division, Forensic Sciences Department,
Chennai belonged to the male individual seen in the photograph
at serial no.4. With the report, Exhibit P-25, C. Pushparani (PW29), Scientific Assistant Grade II, Anthropology Division, Forensic
Sciences Department, Chennai had enclosed the computer laser
printouts taken by her at the time of examination to establish and
prove that the photographs of deceased - Rajini @ Rajinikanth
match with the mandible and the skull (Exhibits P-26 to P-28).
We have carefully examined the computer laser print outs, and
are of the opinion that the findings of the High Court affirming the
judgment of the trial court are justified.
14. On behalf of the appellant - Perumal Raja @ Perumal, it is submitted
that as per Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department
of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry no
definite cause of death could be ascertained due to decomposition
of the body. However, it is pertinent to note that Dr. S. Diwakar
(PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine,
Government General Hospital, Puducherry has also deposed that
the deceased could be between 25-30 years of age and probable
100
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
death could have occurred six months prior to the autopsy. It must
be further noted that the deceased - Rajini @ Rajinikanth was about
30 years of age and he had been missing for about six months prior
to the date on which the autopsy was conducted.
15. It has been submitted with considerable emphasis that Dr. S. Diwakar
(PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine,
Government General Hospital, Puducherry has accepted that the
lower jaw (mandible) was not found. Whereas, deposition of C.
Pushparani (PW-29), Scientific Assistant Grade II, Anthropology
Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai and the photo
superimposition done by her specifically refer to the lower jaw. We
have examined this contention. Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior
Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government
General Hospital, Puducherry, in his examination-in-chief, has testified
that the police had sent the skull, sternum and right femur which
were preserved by him from the autopsy material. Dr. S. Diwakar
(PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine,
Government General Hospital, Puducherry has also stated that the
lower jaw and the left lower first premolar tooth were preserved by
him from the skeleton remains for onward transmission to Central
Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad, for necessary photo
superimposition and DNA test through the Judicial Magistrate-II,
Puducherry. The mahazar dated 21.5.2008 (Exhibit P-15) was
prepared after collecting the aforesaid body parts.
16. We do not find that any confusion or doubt arises from the deposition
of Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of
Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry.
He had conducted the post mortem examination (Exhibit P-16) on
26.04.2008, wherein he had examined the remains/body parts of the
deceased which were found in the two nylon sack bags on the same
day. Other body parts including, the lower part of the skull i.e. the
mandible and the tooth were found subsequently in the sump tank
on 30.04.2008. Therefore, Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical
Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General
Hospital, Puducherry, in his deposition, while referring to Exhibit
P-17 dated 19.05.2008, has referred to the lower jaw (mandible)
and the left lower first premolar tooth, to send the said body parts
to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory at Hyderabad.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
101
PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL v.
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
17. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant - Perumal Raja
@ Perumal that Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer,
Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital,
Puducherry, in his cross-examination, has accepted that body parts
were sent to him in two nylon sack bags only once, and nothing was
sent thereafter. The post mortem was completed on 26.04.2008, vide
the post mortem report (Exhibit P-16) of the same date.
18. Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of
Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry had
issued bone-case certificate (Exhibit P-17) on 19.05.2008. Dr. S.
Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic
Medicine, Government General Hospital, Puducherry has clarified that
while he did not mention the lower jaw in the post mortem 26.04.2008
(Exhibit P-16), he had mentioned that the lower jaw was preserved
in the bone-case certificate (Exhibit P-17) dated 19.05.2008.7
Further, the aforesaid deposition of Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior
Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine, Government
General Hospital, Puducherry has to be read with the testimony
of T. Bairavasamy (PW-32), Circle Inspector, PS Odiansalai, who
had deposed that he had taken the letter written by Dr. S. Diwakar
(PW-24), Senior Medical Officer, Department of Forensic Medicine,
Government General Hospital, Puducherry and had obtained the
signatures of Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry for conducting DNA
test. Thereafter, the material objects were sent through Form 95
No. 02876 (Exhibit P-60) to the Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry.
The skull and the mandible were sent for photo superimposition test
after addressing a letter to Judicial Magistrate-II, Puducherry which
was signed by Dr. S. Diwakar (PW-24), Senior Medical Officer,
Department of Forensic Medicine, Government General Hospital,
Puducherry (Exhibit P-61).
19. The prosecution's case, in the absence of eye witnesses, is based
upon circumstantial evidence. As per Section 25 of the Indian
Evidence Act, 18728, a confession made to a police officer is
prohibited and cannot be admitted in evidence. Section 26 of the
Evidence Act provides that no confession made by any person whilst
7
The recovery of lower jaw from the sump took place on 30.04.2008. Thus, it could not have been mentioned in the post mortem report dated 26.04.2008.
8
 For short 'the Evidence Act'.
102
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
he is in the custody of a police officer shall be proved against such
person, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate.
Section 279 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Sections 25
and 26 of the Evidence Act. It makes that part of the statement
which distinctly leads to discovery of a fact in consequence of the
information received from a person accused of an offence, to the
extent it distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered, admissible
in evidence against the accused. The fact which is discovered as
a consequence of the information given is admissible in evidence.
Further, the fact discovered must lead to recovery of a physical object
and only that information which distinctly relates to that discovery can
be proved. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is based on the doctrine
of confirmation by subsequent events - a fact is actually discovered
in consequence of the information given, which results in recovery
of a physical object. The facts discovered and the recovery is an
assurance that the information given by a person accused of the
offence can be relied.
20. In Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor10, the Privy Council held that
the fact discovered embraces the place from which the physical object
is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the
information given, must distinctly relate to this fact.
21. In State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru11, this
Court affirmed that the fact discovered within the meaning of Section
27 of the Evidence Act must be some concrete fact to which the
information directly relates. Further, the fact discovered should refer
to a material/physical object and not to a pure mental fact relating
to a physical object disassociated from the recovery of the physical
object.
22. However, we must clarify that Section 27 of the Evidence Act, as held
in these judgments, does not lay down the principle that discovery
of a fact is to be equated to the object produced or found. The
discovery of the fact resulting in recovery of a physical object exhibits
9
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 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.
10
AIR 1947 PC 67.
11
(2005) 11 SCC 600.
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
103
PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL v.
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
knowledge or mental awareness of the person accused of the offence
as to the existence of the physical object at the particular place.
Accordingly, discovery of a fact includes the object found, the place
from which it was produced and the knowledge of the accused as to
its existence. To this extent, therefore, factum of discovery combines
both the physical object as well as the mental consciousness of the
informant accused in relation thereto. In Mohmed Inayatullah v.
State of Maharashtra12, elucidating on Section 27 of the Evidence
Act, it has been held that the first condition imposed and necessary
for bringing the section into operation is the discovery of a fact which
should be a relevant fact in consequence of information received from
a person accused of an offence. The second is that the discovery of
such a fact must be deposed to. A fact already known to the police
will fall foul and not meet this condition. The third is that at the time
of receipt of the information, the accused must be in police custody.
Lastly, it is only so much of information which relates distinctly to
the fact thereby discovered resulting in recovery of a physical object
which is admissible. Rest of the information is to be excluded. The
word 'distinctly' is used to limit and define the scope of the information
and means 'directly', 'indubitably', 'strictly' or 'unmistakably'. Only that
part of the information which is clear, immediate and a proximate
cause of discovery is admissible.
23. The facts proved by the prosecution, particularly the admissible
portion of the statement of the accused, would give rise to two
alternative hypotheses, namely, (i) that the accused had himself
deposited the physical items which were recovered; or (ii) only the
accused knew that the physical items were lying at that place. The
second hypothesis is wholly compatible with the innocence of the
accused, whereas the first would be a factor to show involvement
of the accused in the offence. The court has to analyse which of the
hypotheses should be accepted in a particular case.
24. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is frequently used by the police, and
the courts must be vigilant about its application to ensure credibility
of evidence, as the provision is vulnerable to abuse. However, this
does not mean that in every case invocation of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act must be seen with suspicion and is to be discarded
as perfunctory and unworthy of credence.
12
(1976) 1 SCC 828.
104
[2024] 1 S.C.R.
DIGITAL SUPREME COURT REPORTS
25. The pre-requisite of police custody, within the meaning of Section
27 of the Evidence Act, ought to be read pragmatically and not
formalistically or euphemistically. In the present case, the disclosure
statement (Exhibit P-37) was made by the appellant - Perumal Raja
@ Perumal on 25.04.2008, when he was detained in another case,
namely, FIR No. 204/2008, registered at PS Grand Bazar, Puducherry,
relating to the murder of Rajaram. He was subsequently arrested
in this case, that is FIR.No.80/2008, which was registered at PS
Odiansalai, Puducherry. The expression "custody" under Section 27 of
the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind
of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the
accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information,
the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the
custody of the police.
26. Reference is made to a recent decision of this Court in Rajesh
& Anr. v. State of Madhya Pradesh13, which held that formal
accusation and formal police custody are essential pre-requisites
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In our opinion, we need not
dilate on the legal proposition as we are bound by the law and ratio
as laid down by the decision of a Constitution Bench of this Court
in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya14. The law laid down by
this Court in a decision delivered by a Bench of larger strength is
binding on any subsequent Bench of lesser or coequal strength.15
This Court in Deoman Upadhyay (supra) observed that the bar
under Section 25 of the Evidence Act applies equally whether or not
the person against whom evidence is sought to be led in a criminal
trial was in custody at the time of making the confession.