# INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN DAVID

- **Citation:** [2011] 7 S.C.R. 354
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-04-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2002
- **Bench:** Dalveer Bhandari, Dr. Mukundakam Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-v-john-david-27795
- **Pages:** 41

## Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 201, 364 and 342 -
C Gruesome murder - Dead body cut into different pieces -
PW1 's son was studying for a medical degree and staying in
the college hostel - He was allegedly killed by respondent, a
senior student in the same college -
A/legation that
respondent caused head injury to the deceased and when
D deceased was lying on the ground unconscious, the
respondent severed his head and limbs and removed his
gold ring, watch and gold chain - Further a/legation that
thereafter, respondent put the head and the gold articles of
deceased in a zip bag and threw it into canal water near the
E hostel and burnt the bloodstained clothes of the deceased in
the open terrace of the hostel building and took the torso in a
suitcase along with the limbs in a train and threw the limbs in
a river while the train was in transit and put the torso in a bus
- Trial court convicted respondent under ss. 302, 201, 364
F and 342 /PC and sentenced him to life imprisonment - High
Court acquitted the respondent - Justification of - Held: Not
justified - All the witnesses were independent and respectable
eye-witnesses - From the evidence of the witnesses, it was
clear that the respondent nurtured ill feeling against the
deceased as the deceased refused to write the record note
G for respondent; that the deceased was last seen with the
respondent and that the conduct of respondent was very weird
and strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also
produced stinking smell - Skull of deceased was recovered
H
354
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
355
DAVID
from canal water, and material objects, like, note books of A
deceased, gold chain, blood stained bags, knifes etc. were also
recovered - Also, evidence of three specialist doctors who
categorically stated that the skull, torso and limbs recovered
were of the deceased only - Strong and cogent circumstantial
evidences deduced from the investigation logically and B
rationally point towards the guilt of the respondent - No other
possible or plausible view favouring the respondent -
Conviction of respondent restored.
Appeal -Appeal against acquittal - Power of the appellate
court - Held: While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, C
the appellate Court has no restriction to review and relook the
entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded -
On such review, the appellate Court would consider the
manner in which the evidence was dealt with by the lower Court
- At the same time, if the lower Court's decision is based on D
erroneous views and against the settled position of law, then
such an order of acquittal should be set aside - Further, if the
trial Court has ignored material and relevant facts or misread
such evidence or has ignored scientific documents, then in
such a scenario the appellate court is competent to reverse E
the decision of the trial court.
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of -
Held: Each and every incriminating circumstance must be
clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the F
circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from
which the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is
the guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against
the guilt is possible - In a case depending largely upon
circumstantial evidence, there is always a. danger that G
conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof -
The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the
chain of events have been estafjfished clearly and such
completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a
reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused - There H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A
is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be
true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions.
Investigation/Inquiry -
Held: Minor loopholes and
iffegularities in the investigation process cannot form the crux
8
of the case on which an accused can rely upon to prove his
innocenc

## Text

_Characters 0–39,961 of 79,552. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39961 for what follows._

A
B
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 354
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
v.
JOHN DAVID
(Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2002)
APRIL 20, 2011
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
SHARMA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 201, 364 and 342 -
C Gruesome murder - Dead body cut into different pieces -
PW1 's son was studying for a medical degree and staying in
the college hostel - He was allegedly killed by respondent, a
senior student in the same college -
A/legation that
respondent caused head injury to the deceased and when
D deceased was lying on the ground unconscious, the
respondent severed his head and limbs and removed his
gold ring, watch and gold chain - Further a/legation that
thereafter, respondent put the head and the gold articles of
deceased in a zip bag and threw it into canal water near the
E hostel and burnt the bloodstained clothes of the deceased in
the open terrace of the hostel building and took the torso in a
suitcase along with the limbs in a train and threw the limbs in
a river while the train was in transit and put the torso in a bus
- Trial court convicted respondent under ss. 302, 201, 364
F and 342 /PC and sentenced him to life imprisonment - High
Court acquitted the respondent - Justification of - Held: Not
justified - All the witnesses were independent and respectable
eye-witnesses - From the evidence of the witnesses, it was
clear that the respondent nurtured ill feeling against the
deceased as the deceased refused to write the record note
G for respondent; that the deceased was last seen with the
respondent and that the conduct of respondent was very weird
and strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also
produced stinking smell - Skull of deceased was recovered
H
354
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
355
DAVID
from canal water, and material objects, like, note books of A
deceased, gold chain, blood stained bags, knifes etc. were also
recovered - Also, evidence of three specialist doctors who
categorically stated that the skull, torso and limbs recovered
were of the deceased only - Strong and cogent circumstantial
evidences deduced from the investigation logically and B
rationally point towards the guilt of the respondent - No other
possible or plausible view favouring the respondent -
Conviction of respondent restored.
Appeal -Appeal against acquittal - Power of the appellate
court - Held: While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, C
the appellate Court has no restriction to review and relook the
entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded -
On such review, the appellate Court would consider the
manner in which the evidence was dealt with by the lower Court
- At the same time, if the lower Court's decision is based on D
erroneous views and against the settled position of law, then
such an order of acquittal should be set aside - Further, if the
trial Court has ignored material and relevant facts or misread
such evidence or has ignored scientific documents, then in
such a scenario the appellate court is competent to reverse E
the decision of the trial court.
Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of -
Held: Each and every incriminating circumstance must be
clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the F
circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from
which the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is
the guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against
the guilt is possible - In a case depending largely upon
circumstantial evidence, there is always a. danger that G
conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof -
The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the
chain of events have been estafjfished clearly and such
completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a
reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused - There H
356
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A
is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be
true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions.
Investigation/Inquiry -
Held: Minor loopholes and
iffegularities in the investigation process cannot form the crux
8
of the case on which an accused can rely upon to prove his
innocence when there are strong circumstantial evidences
deduced from the investigation which logically and rationally
point towards the guilt of the accused.
PW1 's son was a first year junior student in a Medical
C College and was staying in the college hostel.
Respondent was a senior student in the same medical
college and he too was staying in the hostel.
According to the prosecution, respondent took away
0
PW-1 's son (deceased) and subjected him to severe
ragging in the college Hostel and when the latter did not
subjugate himself to the respondent, he caused head
injury to the deceased and when deceased was lying on
the ground unconscious, the respondent severed his
E head and limbs with the help of stainless steel knives and
removed his gold ring, watch and gold chain. It was the
further case of the prosecution that after doing such
gruesome act and with the intention of hiding the
evidence and also to show his alibi, the respondent put
the head and the gold articles of deceased in a zip bag
F
and threw it into canal water near the hostel and burnt
the bloodstained clothes of the deceased in the open
terrace of the hostel building and took the torso in a
suitcase along with the limbs in a train to Madras and
threw the limbs in a river when the train crossed
G Cuddalore and put the torso in a bus.
A torso was recovered by PW-55, Inspector of Police
from the Bus Depot based on the information given by
PW-53, a bus conductor. The respondent gave a
H confessional statement in police custody and pursuant
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
357
DAVID
thereto the severed head of the deceased was recovered.
A
Three human bones femur, tibia and fibula were also
recovered from the sea-shore based on the information
given by the PW-43, the concerned Village Administrative
Officer. Post mortem of the limbs were conducted by PW45 and later limbs were sent to PW-66. PW-66 after B
examining the severed head, the torso and three human
bones above mentioned, found that they belonged to a
single individual and also the fact that they belong to
decease!!. PW-1 and his nephew PW-60 also identified
and confirmed that the head and torso were of the c
deceased. For confirming the said fact, the sample blood
of PW-1 and his wife [mother of deceased] was examined
by Dr. [PW-77] by DNA test. PW-77 compared the tis_sues
taken from the severed head, torso and timbs and on
scientific analysis he found that the same gene found in
D
the blood of PW-1 and his wife were found in the
recovered parts of the body and that therefore they
should belong to the son of PW-1.
The trial court held that there were enough
circumsta,ntial evidence and motive on the part of the
E
respondent-accused and held him guilty under Sections
302, 201, 364 and 342 IPC alongwith life imprisonment On
appeal, the High Court acquitted the respondent. Hence
the present appeal.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL:
1.1. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the
appellate Court has no restriction to review and retook
F
G
the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal ls
founded. On such review, the appellate Court would
consider the manner in which the evidence was dealt H
358
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A with by the lower Court. At the same time, if the lower
Court's decision is based on erroneous views and
against the settled position of law, then such an order of
acquittal should be set aside. [Para 16] [379-8-C]
8
1.2. Further, if the trial Court has ignored material and
relevant facts or misread such evidence or has ignored
scientific documents, then in such a scenario the
appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of
the· trial court. [Para 17] [379-D]
C
. State of U.P. v. Ram Sajivan & Ors. (2010) 1 SCC 529:
D
2009 (16) SCR 154; Sannaia Subba Rao & Ors. vs. State of
A.P. 2008 (17) sec 225: 2008 (11) SCR 243; Sidhartha
Vashisht alias Ma nu Sharma vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2010)
6 sec 1: 2010 (4) SCR 103 - relied on.
CASE ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE:
2. The law is well-settled that each and every
incriminating circumstance must b~ clearly established
by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances
E so proved must form a chain of events from which the
only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is the
guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against
the guilt is possible. In a case depending largely upon
circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that
F conjecture or suspicion may take t.he place of legal proof.
The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances
in the chain of events have been established clearly and
such completed chain of events must be such as to rule
out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the
G accused. Also when the important link goes, the chain of
circumstances
gets
snapped
and
the
other
circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt
of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. The Court
has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the
H suspicion to take the place of legal proof. There is a long
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
359
DAVID
mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true'
A
and the same divides conjectures from sure
conclusions. [Para 19] [379-G-H; 380-A-C]
State of U.P. v. Rarn Balak & Anr., (2008) 15 SCC 551
- relied on.
B
MOTIVE:
3. In the present case, the prosecution has alleged
that accused was in the habit of ragging the junior
students and accustomed in getting his home work done c
by the junior students and that is why when the deceased
did not subjugate himself to the accused, the accused
gathered ill-will against the deceased and therefore, that
was the motive for which the accused killed him. For the
purpose of proving the aforesaid motive of the accused,
D
the prosecution placed reliance upon the evidence of
PW-3, PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-19 and PW-20. PW-3 was the,
Head of the Department of Radiology, Annamalai
University as also part-time Warden of Malligai Hostel of
the University, whereas PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, PW-19 and
E
PW-20 were the 1st year students of the college. From the
evidence of the above witnesses and other documents
on records it becomes quite· evident that the record
books of the accused were written by other juniors and
F
that accused was in the habit of ragging junior students.
The evidence of PWs 19 & 20 also go to prove that the
accused was looking for deceased frantically in the
morning, which was definitely not for the benefit of the
deceased looking at the background behaviour of the
accused towards deceased, for there is enough evidence
on record to support the case of the prosecution that the G ·
accused was having malice and ill-will against with the
deceased as he had refused to succumb to the ragging
demands of the accused. [Para 23] [383-F-H; 384-A-H;
385-A]
H
360
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2011] 7 S.C.R.
A 4. LAST SEEN ALIVE:
From the evidence of the witnesses it is also clear
that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of
the accused on 06.11.1996 between 12.45 to 2.00 p.m.
8 and thereafter no one had seen the deceased alive and
this fact also supports the case of the prosecution.
Moreover accused admitted in his statement filed during
question U/s 313, Cr.P.C. that he was sitting in the
corridor of Dean's office in the afternoon of 06.11.1996,
which further corroborates the case of prosecution. [Para
C 24] [385-G-H; 386-A]
SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED:
5. The conduct of the accused is the next chain of
D circumstance which is heavily relied upon by the
prosecution for proving the guilt of the accused and for
this it placed reliance on the evidence of Subba @
Vankatesan [PW-28], Vijayarangam ~PW-29], Murali [PW35], Senthilkumar [PW-40], Joe Bulgani [PW-41_] and
E Rajmohan [PW-42]. In the facts and circumstances of the
case, the unusual and eccentric conduct of the accused
which is unequivocally told by the witnesses makes the
conduct of the accused highly suspicious and leads to
corroborate the case of the prosecution. [Para 25] [386F B-C; 387-E-F]
CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND
CONSEQUENTIAL RECOVERIES:
6.1 The accused after surrendering before the Court
G of Judicial Magistrate on 14.11.1996 also gave his
confessional statement [Exhibit-50] on 19.11.1996 in the
presence of [PW-58], Village Administrative Officer,
wherein in very clear terms he admitted his crime as is
presented by the prosecution. Also it has been admitted
H by the Trial Court as also by the High Court that at no
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
361
DAVID
stage of trial there is any allegation of torture of the
A
accused in the hands of the police, which clearly proves
that the statement made by the accused on 19.11.1996
was given voluntarily and is an admissible piece of
evidence. The High Court merely on an assume~ basis
held that the confessional statement could not have been
B
voluntarily given by the accused without referring to any
particular evidence in support of the said conclusion. The
confession was given by the accused in presence of
[PW-58] and his assistant, who are totally independent
persons. [Para 26] (387-G-H; 388-A-E]
c
6.2. Only such information which is found proximate
to the cause of discovery of material objects, alone is
taken as admissible in law and in the present case there
are lot of materials which were recovered at the instance
of such confessional statement made by the accused
D
only. [Para 28] (388-H; 389-A]
6.3. At the instance and in pursuance of the said
confessional statement given by the accused, PW-78,
Police Inspector, PW-58, Village Administrative Officer E
and his assistant alongwith other witnesses went to the
south canal of the KRM Hostel at about 7.30 a.m. where
he had thrown the head of the deceased after putting it
in a zip bag and since the water level of the canal was
high,· Fire Service and University Authorities were
F
requested to drain the water, which was accordingly
done and in the meantime at about 8.45 a.m. at the
instance of accused only M0-3, a rexine bag, was
recovered which contained two notebooks belonging to
the deceased [MOs 4 & 5]. Thereafter, after producing the
G
accused before the Doctors of Govt. Hospital at 10.00 a.m.
as per the directions of the court, the accused took PW78 along with other witnesses to Room No. 319 (of KRM
hostel) and from there material objects from 9 to 15 and
29 were recovered which included three knifes, one blue
H
362
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A colour small brief case, among others and from Room
No. 32~ and 325 material objects from 30 to 33 were
recovered which included blood stained cement mortar.
At about 4.00 p.m. when the search party returned to the
boat canal, the zip bag [M0-22] containing a severed
B human head was recovered at 4.30 p.m. The severed
head of the deceased was recovered from the specific
place which was indicated and identified by the accused.
The recovery of other material objects at the indication/
instance of the accused- creates/generates enough
c incriminating evidence against him and makes such part
of the confessional statement clearly admissible in
evidence. The fact that the skull found in the water canal
of the university belonged to deceased is proved from the
evidence of PW-66, PW-52 and PW-77. PW-66 in his
0 evidence stated that the deceased appear to have died
because of decapitation of injuries and that the injury is
ante-mortem. The Doctor also opined that a sharp cutting
weapon would have been used for causing injuries. He
further stated in his evidence that severing of head and
removal of the muscles and nerves of limbs could have
E been done by MOs 9 to 11. PW-66 also opined that both
the torso and head belongs to one and the same person.
Also from the evidence of PW-52 (dentist) it is found that
he had given silver filling on the right upper first molar
of the deceased and that he had removed the left upper
F milk tooth and removed the root thereof and the said fact
was also clearly and rightly found in the post mortem
conducted by PW-66 on the head recovered from the
boat-canal. The said fact was also proved from the DNA
test conducted by PW-77. PW-77 had compared the
G tissues taken from the severed head, torso and limbs and
on scientific analysis he has found that the same gene
found in the blood of PW-1 and his wife were found in
the recovered parts of the body and that therefore they
should belong to the only missing son of PW-1. The Trial
H Court relied upon the super-imposition process/test
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
363
DAVID
made by Dr. [PW-65], Assistant Director, Forensic
A
Science Department, Madras, who stated in his evidence
that the skull recovered was of PW1 's son. Therefore,
from the evidence of PWs 65 & 66 it becomes amply clear
that the skull recovered from the boat canal is of PW-1 's
son only. [Paras 29, 30] [389-B-H; 390-A-F]
B
6.4. On 7.11.1996 at about 6.00 p.m., PW-53, the
conductor of Bus [bearing no. T.B.01-2366] having route
No. 21 G [from Thambaram suburban of Chennai City to
Paris Corner] found a male torso under the last seat of
the bus packed in white blood stained polythene bag
C
with red letters [marked as M0-16] and thereafter case
was registered and investigation was started by PW-55,
Inspector of Police. PW-66 conducted autopsy/postmortem at 10.00 a.m. on 8.11.1996 and having found that
the deceased had died of decapitation of injuries, he
D
opined that the injuries found on the torso and skull were
anti-mortem and the deceased would appear to have died
of decapitation and he further stat~d that the respective
surface of the fifth cervical vertebra of the head were
reciprocally fitting into the corresponding surface of the
E
sixth cervical vertebra of the torso and this articulation
was exact in nature and hence he opined that the head
and torso belonged to one· and the same person. The
other limbs of the deceased were recovered by [PW-44],
Sub-Inspector on 21.11.1996 in a pale-coloured with
F
yellow, red and green checks in a lungi-like bed-sheet and
along with it was torn polythene bag and a pale cloth
thread. [Paras 32, 33] [390-H; 391-A-EJ
6.5. In the present case there is no direct evidence G
to prove that the accused had himself taken the torso and
limbs of the deceased to Madras and threw the limbs
s.omewhere (while transit to Madras) and also that
accused carried the parcel of torso to Madras and
dropped it in the bus but, there is only circumstantial
evidence. [Para 34] [391-E-FJ
H
364
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A
6.6. One of the clinching evidence against the
accused is the two suitcases [MOs 13 & 14). PW-37, the
room mate of the accused, stated in his evidence that the
two suitcases in which the blood of the deceased was
found belong to the accused. He also stated that M0-22,
B which is a bag in which the head of the deceased was
recovered, also belong to the accused. PW-38 also
corroborated the said fact in his evidence. Blood found
in the suitcases matched with the blood of the deceased
which is blood group 'A'. It is also proved from the
c evidence of the students adduced in the case that foul
smell was emanating from the said two suitcases and that
when accused was asked about the said smell, he only
replied that it is because of Biryani, which his mother had
given him. PW-28, auto driver, affirmatively stated that the
0 accused had taken out those two suitcases with him in
his auto rickshaw on 06.11.1996 when he dropped him
at Chidambaram Railway Station. The hostel chowkidar
examined as PW-29 corroborated the said fact. The
students of the hostel, PW-40, PW-41, not only spoke
about the foul smell emanating from the room where
E those suitcases were kept but also of the fact that the
accused had brought those two suitcases with him when
he came back to the hostel on 08.11.1996 morning. These
are indeed circumstantial evidence but all leading to one
conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence of
F killing the deceased. [Para 35) [391-G-H; 392-A-D]
6.7. There are enough circumstantial evidence to hold
that it is none else but the accused who could have
caused the concealment of torso and limbs because it
G was the accused who had severed the head of deceased
as found earlier and, therefore, he must have been in
possession of the torso and limbs, which were also
subsequently recovered and were also proved to be that
of deceased. [Para 36) [392-G-H]
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
365
DAVID
AmitsinghBhikamsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra
A
(2007) 2 SCC 310: 2008 (14) SCR 219 - referred to.
7. The prosecution has succeeded in proving its
case on circumstantial evidence. In the present case all
the witnesses are independent and respectable eye8
witnesses and they have not been shown to have any axe
to grind against the accused. And from the evidence of
the several witnesses, it is clear that the accused nurtured
ill feeling against th-e deceased as the deceased refused
to write the record note for accused; that the deceased
was last seen with the accused in the afternoon of C
06.11.1996 and he was searching for him very eagerly;
that the conduct of the deceased was very weird and
strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also
produced stinking smell; the recovery of skull from canal
water, material objects, like, note books of deceased, gold
D
chain, blood stained bags, knifes etc.,; and also the
evidence of PW-66, PW-65 and PW-77 who have
categorically stated that the skull, torso and limbs
recovered were of the deceased only. [Para 37] [393-AD]
E
8. It is well-settled proposition of law that the recovery
of crime objects on the basis of information given by the
accused provides a link in the chain of circumstances.
Also failure to explain one of the circumstances would
F
not be fatal for the prosecution case and cumulative
effect of all the circumstances is to be seen in such cases.
Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the
wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the
case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the
testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court G
is free to act on it. Hence, minor loopholes and
irregularities in the investigation process cannot form the
crux of the case on which the respondent can rely upon
to prove his innocence when there are strong
circumstantial evidences deduced from the said
H
366
SUPREME COURT REPORTS .
(2011] 7 S.C.R.
A investigation which logically and rationally point towards
the guilt of the accused. [Paras 38, 39] [393-E-H; 394-A]
B
State of Kamataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy (1999) 8 SCC
715: 1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 359 - relied on.
9. In the considered opinion of this Court, the
prosecution established its case on the basis of strong
and cogent circumstantial evidence and that on the basis
of the circumstances proved, there cannot be any other
possible or plausible view favouring the accused. The
C view taken by the High Court is totally erroneous and
outcome of misreading and misinterpreting the evidence
on record. The High Court erred in reversing the order
of conviction recorded by the trial Court as the
prosecution has established its case. Accordingly, the
D judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment
and decision of the trial Court is restored but only with
one rider that the sentence awarded shall run
concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the
trial court. While doing so reliance is placed upon subE section (2) of section 31 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973. [Paras 40, 41] [394-8-D]
F
G
H
Case Law Reference:
2009 (16) SCR 154
relied on
Para 13
2008 (11) SCR 243
relied on
Para 14
2010 (4) SCR 103
relied on
Para 15
2008 (14) SCR 219
relied on
Para 20
2007 (1) SCR 191
referred to
Para 27
1999 (3) Suppl. SCR 359 relied on
Para 38
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 384 of 2002.
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
367
DAVID
From the Judgment & Order dated 5.10.2001 of the High
A
Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 267 of
1998.
S. Thananjayan for the Appellant.
Sushil Kumar, V. Mahana and Aditya for the Respondent
8
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.1. This appeal is
directed against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2001
C
passed by the High Court of Madras whereby the High Court
has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein. The High
Court acquitted the respondent under Sections 302, 364, 201
and 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") by
reversing the Judgment and order dated 11.03.1988 rendered
0
by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in
Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997.
2. The facts of this case are very shocking and very
distressing. Murder is committed of a young boy, the only son
of his parents, who at the relevant time was studying for a
E
medical degree. The manner in which he was killed and his
dead body was disposed of after cutting· it into different pieces
was very gruesome and ghastly. The person in the dock and
who was accused of the crime was another senior student in
the same campus.
F
3. Brief relevant facts leading to the registration of the first
information report and giving rise to the present appeal are
being set out hereunder.
4. In the academic year of 1995-96 the respondentG
accused was studying in the senior first year course of MBBS
and the deceased-Navarasu, son of Dr. P.K. Ponnusamy [PW1], a retired Vice-Chancellor of Madras University, was studying
in the junior first year course of MBBS in Raja Muthiah Medical
College, Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar. The
H
368
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 7 S.C.R.
A respondent was staying in room no. 319 of KRM hostel and the
deceased was staying in room no. 95 in E.1 Malligai Hostel
belonging to the same medical college campus. PW-1 returned
from his foreign trip on 07.11.1996 and was waiting for the
arrival of his son-Navarasu from college to celebrate Diwali
B which in that relevant year fell on 10.11.96. When Navarasu did
not return home till 09.11.1996, PW-1 started enquiring from
the friends of his son, available at Madras but no information
of his whereabouts could be gathered by the father. PW-1 then
on 09.11.1996 rang up the university authorities to find out and
c ascertain the whereabouts of his son. When he was informed
that the college authority found his hostel room locked and when
it was broken upon, it was found that his belongings along with
a small box were lying in the room but he was not available in
the room. The college authorities and the father were of the
0
opinion that Navarasu had not left for Diwali to Madras. PW-1
thereafter rushed to the University on 10.11.96 and made a
complaint of missing of his son a, about 11.30 p.m. on 10.11.96
which was registered as Crime No. 509 of 1996 [Exhibit-P1].
5. While this process was going on and without the
E knowledge of Annamalai Nagar Police, a torso was recovered
at about 8.30 a.m. on 07.11.1996 by G. Boopahty, Inspector
of Police, E.5 Pattinapakkam [PW-55), from the PTC Bus
Depot at Mandaiveli, Madras based on the information given
by Prakash [PW-53], conductor of the bus route NO. 21G. The
F said recovered torso was sent for post-mortem after inquest.
The Annamalai Nagar Police after registering the missing report
started investigation and during the course of such investigation
gathered materials and also received information from various
persons including students of the college pointing the guilt
G towards the accused, who was also found absconding from the
college premises from 12-14.11.1996. On 14.11.1996 the
accused surrendered himself before the Judicial Magistrate,
Mannargudi. The message of his surrender was conveyed to
the Annamalai Nagar PS, which got the police custody for five
days of the accused from 18.11.1996. On 19.11.1996 at about
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
369
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
1.30 a.m. the accused gave a confessional statement stating
A
that he has put the severed head of the deceased in the boatcanal within the University campus. Pursuant to the said
confession, the head was also recovered. Annamalai Nagar PS
on 20.11.1996 asked E5. Pattinapakkam PS for sending the
records connected with the torso recovered at Madras on the B
suspicion that it may belong to the severed head of the
deceased-Navarasu, which was recovered at the instance of
the accused. Dr. K. Ravindran [PW-66] conducted autopsy/
post-mortem of the head at 10.00 am on 21.11.1996. On
22.11.1996 a message was received from Villupuram Control c
Room which was forwarded to Annamalai Nagar PS which
mentioned that three human bones femur, tibia and fibula have
been recovered at 1.30 a.m. on 21.11.1996 from the sea-shore
of Konimedu of Merkanam based on the information given by
the concerned Village Administrative Officer-Nagarajan [PWD
43]. Postmortem of the limbs were conducted by Dr. Srinivasan
(PW-45] and later limbs were sent to PW-66. PW-66 after
examining the severed head, the torso and three human bones
above mentioned, found that there are scientific materials to
hold that they belong to a single individual and also the fact that E
they belong to deceased-Navasaru. The father of the deceased
PW-1 and Thandeeswaran [PW-60], nephew of PW-1, also
identified and confirmed that the head and torso are of the
deceased. For confirming the said fact, the sample blood of
PW-1 and his wife Baby Ponnusamy [mother of Navasaru] was
examined by Dr. G.V. Rao [PW-77] at Hyderabad by DNA test.
F
PW-77 compared the tissues taken from the severed head,
torso and limbs and on scientific analysis he found that the
same gene found in the blood of PW-1 and Baby Ponnusamy
were found in the recovered parts of the body and that therefore
they should belong to the only missing son of PW-1.
G
6. The prosecution's version of facts leading to the present
case are that on 06.11.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused-
.John David [first year senior medical student of Muthiah
Medical College, Annamalai Nagar] took away Navarasudeceased [first year junior medical student of Muthiah Medical H
370
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A
College, Annamalai Nagar] and subjected him to severs ragging
in Room No. 319 of KRM Hostel of the college and when the
latter did not subjugate himself to the accused, accused caused
head injury to the deceased and when Navarasu-deceased was
lying on the ground unconscious, the accused severed his head
B
and limbs with the help of stainless steel knives and removed
his gold ring, watch and gold chain and caused his death. After
doing such gruesome act and with the intention of hiding the
evidence and also to show his alibi he put the head and the
gold articles of Navarasu-deceased in a zip bag and threw it
c into canal water near the hostel and burnt the bloodstained
clothes of the deceased in the open terrace of the hostel
building and took the torso in a suitcase along with the limbs
in a train to Madras and threw the limbs in a river when the train
crossed Cuddalore and put the torso in a bus at Tambaram.
D
7. On completion of investigation, the police submitted a
charge sheet against the respondent. On the basis of the
aforesaid charge sheet, charges were framed against the
accused-respondent. The prosecution in order to establish the
guilt of the accused examined several witnesses and exhibited
E
a number of documents including scientific reports. Thereafter,
the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. for the
purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances existing
against him. After hearing arguments advanced by the parties,
the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore by its judgment dated
F
11.03.1998 convicted the accused. Principal Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore found that there are enough circumstantial evidence
and motive on the part of the accused for committing such a
crime and held the accused/respondent guilty under Sections
302, 201, 364 and 342 IPC and convicted and sentenced him
G to undergo imprisonment for life under sections 302 and 364
IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 342
IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a
fme of rupees one lakh and in default to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for twenty one months under Section 201 IPC. It
was also ordered that the sentences would run c::onsecutively.
H
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
371
DAVID [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
· 8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of A
conviction passed by the trial Court, the respondent herein
preferred an appeal before the High Court. The High Court
entertained the said appeal and heard the counsel appearing
for the parties. On conclusion of the arguments, the High Court
held that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the B
accused and accordingly the High Court acquitted the
respondent of all the charges vide its judgment and order dated
05.10.2001 by reversing and setting aside the order cf
conviction passed against the respondent under Sections 302,
201, 364 and 342 IPC.
C
9. We may now at this stage refer to the arguments of the
counsel of the parties in order to understand the scope and
ambit of the appeal and also to appreciate the contentions so
as to enable us to arrive at a well-considered findings and
conclusions.
D
10. Mr. S. Thananjayan, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the State emphatically argued before us that the
decision of the High Court of acquitting the accused person is
totally erroneous and suffers from serious infirmities. He also E
submitted that the prosecution has proved the case to the hilt
and that a compete and well-connected chain of circumstantial
evidences have been established to prove the guilt of the
accused. He also submitted that the prosecution has
established the case against the accused beyond reasonable
F
doubt. It was also submitted that the motive of the accused to
cause bodily injury to the deceased has also been proved and
that the evidence on record clearly establish that on 06.11.1996
the deceased was in the company of the accused and that
thereafter, deceased could not be found and that the G
confessional statement of the accused leading to the discovery
of head of the deceased in the canal is a clinching
circumstance to connect the accused with the offence. He also
contended and relied upon the fact that the accused absconded
from the hostel for several days and thereafter surrendered H
372
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 7 S.C.R.
,ti.
before the Court which would serve as an additional link in the
chain of circumstances to prove the charges levelled against
him. He also submitted that the High Court was not justified in
setting aside the order of conviction, for what the High Court
had found proved was only a plausible or possible view and
B
version, which did not find favour with the trial Court. He also
submitted that the High Court was not justified in disbelieving
the recording of confession merely because of the omission to
mention the same in the case diary. It was also submitted that
the High Court was not justified in disbelieving the recovery
c merely because there was contradiction with regard to timing
of recovery. He further submitted that the High Court erroneously
disbelieved the case of the prosecution that the torso could be
carried in M0-13 - Suit Case which is 21 inches as according
to Exhibit P52 mahazar - the length of M0-13 is 21 inches and
0
diameter is 24 inches and therefore, the torso could not have
been parceled in the suit case M0-13. He also took us through
the evidence on record in support of his contention that the High
Court committed an error in acquitting the respondent solely on
the ground that it is hazardous to convict the accused on the
basis of the evidence placed by the prosecution. He submitted
E
that in the present case all the witnesses produced are of
respectable status and are independent witnesses and they do
not have any axe to grind against the accused and, therefore,
the High Court committed an error in disbelieving the evidence
on record.
F
11. On the other hand, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior
counsel appearing o.n behalf of the respondent-accused very
painstakingly drew our attention to various aspects of the case,
which according to him demolish the very substratum of the
G prosecution case. He also heayily relied upon the fact, by
making submission, that there-are no eye-witnesses and no
direct evidence regarding commission of the crime by the
respondent. He submitted that there are no materials to show
that the respondent took the deceased to room No. 319 [room
H
of the accused] and killed hir;t1 there. He further submitted that
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. JOHN
373
DAVID (DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
as no blood was recovered from the room No. 319 and that
A
the two roommates of the respondent, viz., Raja Chidambaram
[PW-37] & Shagir Thabris [PW-38] have not stated that they
smelled any blood or saw any blood stains in the room, it
definitely belies prosecution case that murder was committed
in the said room of the hostel. Further submission was that PWs
B
37 & 38 admitted that the three knives [i.e., MOSS 9 to 11] were
used for cutting fruits and that PW 37 further admitted that
during the time of interrogation police neither showed the
articles seized from the room of accused nor asked him to
identify the said articles. The counsel for the respondent further c
submitted that there is no evidence to prove that the accused
proceeded to Madras on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. from
Chidambaram railway station, albeit he submitted that accused
took train at Chidambaram on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. bound
for Tiruchirapalli to go to his native place, Karur and returned
D
from Karur on 8th morning. Counsel stated that accused took
his briefcase [M0-13] along with him and that M0-14 belongs
to Raja Chidambaram [PW-37] and after meeting his parents
on 7.11.96, the accused returned to Chidambaram hostel on
the morning of 8.11.96 and he was in the hostel from 911.11.96. On the night of 10.11.96 his mother and his cousin
E
brother had arrived at Chidambaram and stayed in Saradha
Ram Hotel and they left on 11.11.96 Noon. Counsel for the
respondent further submitted that the non-examination of the
Vice-Chancellor and the Dean of the university though they have
been cited in the charge sheet as witnesses is fatal to the
prosecution case. Next submission was that the chain of events
F
to prove the guilt of the accused has many loopholes in it.
Learned senior counsel for the respondent also submitted that
the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused as
circumstances alleged by the prosecution have not been
G
proved. It was also his submission that this being an appeal
against acquittal, It is to be ascertained very carefully whether
the view taken by the High Court is a plausible or possible view
and that if the order of acquittal is one of the possible view, the
same deserves deference rather than interference by the
H
374
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011] 7 S.C.R.
A appellate court. He also submitted that the trial court was wrong
in holding the respondent guilty for evidence adduced by the
prosecution to prove that the deceased was last seen with the
accused replete with inherent improbabilities and
inconsistencies.
B LEGAL POSITION:-
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITI AL
12. Before we enter into the merit of the case, we are
c required to deal with the contention of the counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondent regarding the scope and ambit of
an APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITIAL. Various decisions of this
Court have dealt with the issue very extensively. Therefore, it
would be suffice, if we extract few decisions of this Court laying
o down the law in this regard.
13. In the case of State of U.P. v.