# INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v. MUTHUSAMY AND ANR

- **Citation:** [2008] 13 S.C.R. 309
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2008-09-10
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.655 of 2002
- **Bench:** Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Harjit Singh . Bedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/inspector-of-police-tamil-nadu-v-muthusamy-and-anr-23724
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Criminal Trial - Conviction by Trial Court - Set aside by.
High Court - On grounds that extra judicial confessions were
not reliable; that witnesses resiled from statements made dur- c
ing investigation and that there was manipulation in date of
receipt of report by Magistrate from police station - Held: In
'
view of these discrepancies, no case made out for interference in the judgment of High Court - Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 302 rlw s:34.
C'f
'·
D
According to the prosecution, the deceased was
throttled and poison was also administered to ·him. The
accused-Respondents are the father and brother respectively of the deceased. As the report of ForeJ1sic Science
Laboratory stated that the viscera of the deceased did E
not contain any poison, prosecution later on gave up its
stand that the deceased was administered poison. Trial
Court relied upon the extra-judicial confessions purport·
edly made by the accused-Respondents and accordingly
convicted them under s.302 rlw s.34 IPC. On appeal, the
High Court directed acquittal. Hence the present appeal. F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court referred to the extra-judicial
confessions and found that they are not reliable. The witG
nesses gave varying version' about the so called extra·
~
judicial confessions. Apart from that, the persons .who
claimed to have witnessed the ·incident resiled from the
statemehts made during investigation and there was prac309
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
---1A tically no evidence to implicate the accused persons. To
add to other factors, one more significant factor which
the High Court has noticed is that there was manipulation done to show as if the Magistrate had received the
report from Police Station on 3.1.1990. In reality the date
B of seal found on Exh.P1 and Exh.P9 of the Court of
Keeranoor shows that the date was 5.1.1990. In view of
these discrepancies, the High Court's judgment does not
suffer from any infirmity to warrant any interference. [Para
3] [311-C-E]
c

## Text

t-+
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 309
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU
A
v.
MUTHUSAMY AND ANR.
J
(Criminal Appeal No.655 of 2002)
~
SEPTEMBER 10, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND HARJIT SINGH . BEDI, JJ.]
Criminal Trial - Conviction by Trial Court - Set aside by.
High Court - On grounds that extra judicial confessions were
not reliable; that witnesses resiled from statements made dur- c
ing investigation and that there was manipulation in date of
receipt of report by Magistrate from police station - Held: In
'
view of these discrepancies, no case made out for interference in the judgment of High Court - Penal Code, 1860 -
s. 302 rlw s:34.
C'f
'·
D
According to the prosecution, the deceased was
throttled and poison was also administered to ·him. The
accused-Respondents are the father and brother respectively of the deceased. As the report of ForeJ1sic Science
Laboratory stated that the viscera of the deceased did E
not contain any poison, prosecution later on gave up its
stand that the deceased was administered poison. Trial
Court relied upon the extra-judicial confessions purport·
edly made by the accused-Respondents and accordingly
convicted them under s.302 rlw s.34 IPC. On appeal, the
High Court directed acquittal. Hence the present appeal. F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The High Court referred to the extra-judicial
confessions and found that they are not reliable. The witG
nesses gave varying version' about the so called extra·
~
judicial confessions. Apart from that, the persons .who
claimed to have witnessed the ·incident resiled from the
statemehts made during investigation and there was prac309
H
310
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
---1A tically no evidence to implicate the accused persons. To
add to other factors, one more significant factor which
the High Court has noticed is that there was manipulation done to show as if the Magistrate had received the
report from Police Station on 3.1.1990. In reality the date
B of seal found on Exh.P1 and Exh.P9 of the Court of
Keeranoor shows that the date was 5.1.1990. In view of
these discrepancies, the High Court's judgment does not
suffer from any infirmity to warrant any interference. [Para
3] [311-C-E]
c
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 655 of 2002
From the JudgmenUOrder dated 30.3.2001 of the. High
Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 738 of 1992
D
Shanmugasundaram, S. Thananjayan and V.G. Pragasam
,..,
for the Appellants.
V. Ramasubramanian for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
E
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Heard.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of acquittal
recorded by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court. The
accused persons are the father and brother respectively of the
F deceased. The incident purportedly took place on 3.1.1990.
Though the prosecution relied on the evidence of many persons who supposedly witnessed the occurrence, while deposing in Court, most of them resiled from the statements made
during investigation. The version projected by the prosecution
G was that the deceased was throttled and also poison was administered to him. But the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory stated that the viscera did not contain any poison. The
...
prosecution, therefore, gave up its stand that the deceased was
~I
administered poison by the accused persons. There were purH portedly some extra-judicial confessions on which the Trial Court
J
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU v.
311
MUTHUSAMY & ANR. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT. J.] ·
relied. Accordingly, the accused persons were convicted for A
offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC'). In appeal the High
Court has, by the impugned judgment, directed acquittal.
....
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-State submitted that B
the analysis made by the High Court to direct acquittal cannot
be maintained as the High Court lost sight of several relevant
factors.
3. We find that the High Court has referred to the extrajudicial confessions and found that they are not reliable. The c
witnesses gave varying version about the manner in the socalled extra-judicial confessions. Apart from that the persons
who claimed to have witnessed the incident resiled from the
statements made during investigation and there was practically
no evidence to implicate the accused persons. To add to other D
.. ..,
factors, one more significant factor which the High Court has
noticed is that there was manipulation done to show as if the
Magistrate had received the report from Police Station on
3.1.1990. In reality the date of seal found on Exh. P1 and Exh.
P9 of the Court of Keeranoor shows that the date was 5.1.1990.
In view of these discrepancies, we are of the opinion that the
E
.High Court's judgment does not suffer from any infirmity to warrant any interference.
4. The appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
--
8.8.8.
Appeal dismissed.
F