# Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 845
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-07-15
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019
- **Bench:** Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol, Sandeep Mehta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/kattavellai-devakar-v-state-of-tamilnadu-38584
- **Pages:** 57

## Headnote

Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High
Court upholding the order of the conviction and death sentence of
the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.302, 376 and 397 IPC.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 376, 397 - Evidence Act, 1872 -
ss.27, 106 - Rape and Murder - Circumstantial Evidence -
DNA evidence - Reliability - Prosecution case that victimsyoung man and girl went to a tourist place, where allegedly,
the appellant first came to the prosecution witness and his
partner asking to part with her jewellery and then, approached
the victims, and on their refusal to part with money and gold
led to their killings - Trial court convicted the appellant and
sentenced him to death - Upheld by the High Court considering
the evidence on record-last seen theory, arrest, confession and
recovery, TI Parade, DNA Test and motive - Interference with:
Held: None of the circumstances posited by the prosecution
found to be conclusively proved against the appellant - Chain of
circumstantial evidence in no way points to a singular hypothesis,
that is the guilt of the accused, ruling out his innocence or
involvement of none else in the crime - Circumstance of the
arrival of the two victims at the scene of the crime was on their
own - It cannot be understood how that is a circumstance that
can be, ought to be and is proved as a circumstance against the
appellant - Last seen theory is a weak piece of evidence and
cannot be the sole basis of conviction - Arrest of the appellant itself
is cast under serious doubt, since the circumstances leading to
the same are missing from the record - There is an apparent lack
of corroboration to any of the statements made by the appellant
and as such, the confessions truly unreliable - Statement of the
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
985
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
appellant led to the recovery of certain articles, how any and/or
all of these articles related to the alleged murder of two victims
and rape of one of them is undemonstrated from the record -
Objects recovered were not verified and tested, as such not
sufficient to take the recovery of the objects as a circumstance
against the appellant - Despite the presence of DNA evidence, the
evidence to be discarded since proper methods and procedures
not followed in the collection, sealing, storage, and employment
of the evidence in the course of the appellant's conviction - DNA
evidence collected rendered unusable - Furthermore, it is difficult
to ascribe any motive on the part of the appellant - Entire process
was that of faulty investigation, identity of the accused could not
be sufficiently protected leading to its disclosure well before the
T.I.P. was conducted; nine-day delay in conducting T.I.P entirely
unexplained; lack of coordination between investigating agencies,
partner of star witness not arrayed as a witness; requisite care
regarding the sensitive evidence-DNA not taken in the slightest,
large amount of unexplained delay, chain of custody could not be
established, possibility of contamination could not be ruled out;
postmortem of the deceased persons conducted at the spot of the
crime without due regard to the possibility of contamination, effect
of such examination being conducted in the open, none of the
courts below have found this to be objectionable, and possibility
of ruling out the involvement of third party in the crime - Thus,
the conviction of the appellant is vacated - Evidence Act, 1872 -
s.106. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24, 26, 27, 35, 37, 39, 42, 43, 45]
Directions by Supreme Court - DNA evidence - DNA evidence
collected being rendered unusable - No uniformity or common
procedure followed by investigating authorities - Directions
issued by this Court for all cases where DNA evidence is
involved to ensure proper collection of DNA samples, its
packaging, documentation, transportation, preservation of
DNA and maintenance of Chain of Custody Register - Registry
to send a copy of the judgment to all

## Text

_Characters 0–39,957 of 119,362. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39957 for what follows._

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 984 : 2025 INSC 845
Kattavellai @ Devakar
v.
State of Tamilnadu
(Criminal Appeal No. 1672 of 2019)
15 July 2025
[Vikram Nath, Sanjay Karol* and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as to the correctness of the order passed by the High
Court upholding the order of the conviction and death sentence of
the appellant for offence punishable u/ss.302, 376 and 397 IPC.
Headnotes†
Penal Code, 1860 - ss.302, 376, 397 - Evidence Act, 1872 -
ss.27, 106 - Rape and Murder - Circumstantial Evidence -
DNA evidence - Reliability - Prosecution case that victimsyoung man and girl went to a tourist place, where allegedly,
the appellant first came to the prosecution witness and his
partner asking to part with her jewellery and then, approached
the victims, and on their refusal to part with money and gold
led to their killings - Trial court convicted the appellant and
sentenced him to death - Upheld by the High Court considering
the evidence on record-last seen theory, arrest, confession and
recovery, TI Parade, DNA Test and motive - Interference with:
Held: None of the circumstances posited by the prosecution
found to be conclusively proved against the appellant - Chain of
circumstantial evidence in no way points to a singular hypothesis,
that is the guilt of the accused, ruling out his innocence or
involvement of none else in the crime - Circumstance of the
arrival of the two victims at the scene of the crime was on their
own - It cannot be understood how that is a circumstance that
can be, ought to be and is proved as a circumstance against the
appellant - Last seen theory is a weak piece of evidence and
cannot be the sole basis of conviction - Arrest of the appellant itself
is cast under serious doubt, since the circumstances leading to
the same are missing from the record - There is an apparent lack
of corroboration to any of the statements made by the appellant
and as such, the confessions truly unreliable - Statement of the
* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
985
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
appellant led to the recovery of certain articles, how any and/or
all of these articles related to the alleged murder of two victims
and rape of one of them is undemonstrated from the record -
Objects recovered were not verified and tested, as such not
sufficient to take the recovery of the objects as a circumstance
against the appellant - Despite the presence of DNA evidence, the
evidence to be discarded since proper methods and procedures
not followed in the collection, sealing, storage, and employment
of the evidence in the course of the appellant's conviction - DNA
evidence collected rendered unusable - Furthermore, it is difficult
to ascribe any motive on the part of the appellant - Entire process
was that of faulty investigation, identity of the accused could not
be sufficiently protected leading to its disclosure well before the
T.I.P. was conducted; nine-day delay in conducting T.I.P entirely
unexplained; lack of coordination between investigating agencies,
partner of star witness not arrayed as a witness; requisite care
regarding the sensitive evidence-DNA not taken in the slightest,
large amount of unexplained delay, chain of custody could not be
established, possibility of contamination could not be ruled out;
postmortem of the deceased persons conducted at the spot of the
crime without due regard to the possibility of contamination, effect
of such examination being conducted in the open, none of the
courts below have found this to be objectionable, and possibility
of ruling out the involvement of third party in the crime - Thus,
the conviction of the appellant is vacated - Evidence Act, 1872 -
s.106. [Paras 14, 15, 17, 18, 21, 24, 26, 27, 35, 37, 39, 42, 43, 45]
Directions by Supreme Court - DNA evidence - DNA evidence
collected being rendered unusable - No uniformity or common
procedure followed by investigating authorities - Directions
issued by this Court for all cases where DNA evidence is
involved to ensure proper collection of DNA samples, its
packaging, documentation, transportation, preservation of
DNA and maintenance of Chain of Custody Register - Registry
to send a copy of the judgment to all High Courts and also
the Directors General of the Police of all States to ensure
necessary compliance. [Para 44]
Justice delivery system - Compensation - Clean acquittal of
the accused after very long incarceration - Law Commission of
India in its 277th report dealt with the said issue, however, the
Report confined the understanding of 'wrongful prosecution'
to include only malicious prosecution, and the prosecution
986
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
initiated without good faith, it did not directly deal with the
situation of long incarceration - In foreign jurisdictions-United
States of America, compensation is award to the persons
acquitted after a long period of incarceration on being held
innocent - Right to compensation has been recognised by
both Federal and State statutes - Legislature to consider the
said aspect. [Para 46]
Case Law Cited
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh [1974] 1 SCR 328 : (1974) 3 SCC
277; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet Singh [1999] 1 SCR
1033 : (1999) 4 SCC 370; Hanumant v. State of M.P [1952] 1
SCR 1091 : (1952) 2 SCC 71; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State
of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116; Nizam v.
State of Rajasthan [2015] 10 SCR 786 : (2016) 1 SCC 550;
Ravasaheb v. State of Karnataka [2023] 2 SCR 965 : (2023) 5
SCC 391; Sanjay v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 572;
Sawal Das v. State of Bihar [1974] 3 SCR 74 : (1974) 4 SCC
193; Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra [2021] 2
SCR 617 : (2021) 5 SCC 626; Surajdeo Mahto v. State of Bihar
[2021] 8 SCR 911 : (2022) 11 SCC 800; Veerendra v. State of
M.P. [2022] 4 SCR 225 : (2022) 8 SCC 668; Bodhraj v. State of
J&K [2002] Supp. 2 SCR 67 : (2002) 8 SCC 45; State of U.P. v.
Shyam Behari [2009] 6 SCR 4 : (2009) 15 SCC 548; Sambhubhai
Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat, 2024 INSC 987 : (2025)
2 SCC 399; Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. [2023] 2
SCR 20 : (2023) 6 SCC; Bijender v. State of Haryana [2021] 7
SCR 1138 : (2022) 1 SCC 92; K. Chinnaswamy Reddy v. State of
A.P. [1963] 3 SCR 412 : 1962 SCC OnLine SC 32; Anil v. State
of Maharashtra [2014] 3 SCR 34 : (2014) 4 SCC 69; Manoj v.
State of M.P. [2022] 9 SCR 452 : (2023) 2 SCC 353; Prakash
Nishad v. State of Maharashtra [2023] 8 SCR 152 : (2023) 16
SCC 357; Munshi Singh Gautam v. State of M.P. [2004] Supp.
5 SCR 1092 : (2005) 9 SCC 631; Malkhansingh v. State of M.P.
[2003] Supp. 1 SCR 443 : (2003) 5 SCC 746; Visveswaran v.
State [2003] 3 SCR 978 : (2003) 6 SCC 73; Ashok Debbarma v.
State of Tripura [2014] 4 SCR 287 : (2014) 4 SCC 747; Umesh
Chandra v. State of Uttarakhand (2021) 17 SCC 616; Hari Nath v.
State of U.P. [1988] 1 SCR 848 : (1988) 1 SCC 14; Iqbal v. State
of U.P. [2015] 6 SCR 239 : (2015) 6 SCC 623; Raja v. State
[2019] 17 SCR 1187 : (2020) 15 SCC 562; Gireesan Nair v. State
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
987
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
of Kerala [2022] 8 SCR 599 : (2023) 1 SCC 180; Budhsen v.
State of U.P. [1971] 1 SCR 564 : (1970) 2 SCC 128; Maya Kaur
Baldevsingh Sardar v. State of Maharashtra [2007] 10 SCR
752 : (2007) 12 SCC 654; C. Muniappan v. State of T.N. [2010]
10 SCR 262 : (2010) 9 SCC 567; Sk. Umar Ahmed Shaikh v.
State of Maharashtra [1998] 2 SCR 1209 : (1998) 5 SCC 103;
Rajesh v. State of Haryana [2020] 14 SCR 1 : (2021) 1 SCC
118; Mukesh v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2017] 6 SCR 1 : (2017) 6
SCC 1; Mohd. Anwar v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2020] 7 SCR 150 :
(2020) 7 SCC 391; Suryamoorthy v. Govindaswamy (1989) 3 SCC
24; Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [1994] Supp. 1 SCR
483 : (1995) Supp. 1 SCC 80; Mulla v. State of U.P [2010] 2
SCR 633 : (2010) 3 SCC 508; Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing
Chamansing (2001) 6 SCC 145; V. Senthil Balaji v. The Deputy
Director, Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 739 : [2024] 10
SCR 393 : [2024] 10 SCR 393 - referred to.
List of Websites
https://jhpolice.gov.in/sites/default/files/documents-reports/
jhpolice_ebook_a_forensic_guide_for_crime_investigators.pdf;
http://164.100.117.138/pdfs/crime%20scene%20manual%20full_
organized.pdf; https://www.cfslchandigarh.gov.in/Uploads/Media/
Original/20180627121024_IOSOP%20Final.pdf - referred to.
Books and Periodicals Cited
M.J. Ryan, "Compensation for Wrongful Convictions in the United
States" in Compensation for Wrongful Convictions - a Comparative
Perspective, Jasinski and Kremens (Eds.) 2023 - referred to.
List of Acts
Penal Code, 1860; Evidence Act, 1872; Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973; Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989; Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Circumstantial evidence; DNA evidence; Murder; Robbery; Rape;
Last seen theory; Arrest; Confession; Recovery; Confession to
police authorities; Test Identification Parade; Dock Identification;
Motive; Star witness; Faulty investigation; Directions by Supreme
Court as regards DNA evidence; Right to compensation; Death
988
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
sentence; Rape and Murder; DNA Test; Motive; Coordination
between investigating agencies; Large gaps in the chain of custody;
Postmortem; Directors General of Police of all States; Clean
acquittal of accused after long incarceration; Right to life; Law
Commission of India, 277th report; Foreign jurisdictions, United
States of America; Legislature.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1672 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.03.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras at Madurai in RTMD No. 1 of 2018
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Ms. Manasa Ramakrishna, Ms. Sreepriya
K., Mangesh Naik, Ms. Trisha Chandran, A. Karthik.
Advs. for the Respondents:
V Krishnamurthy, Sr. Adv., Sabarish Subramanian, Vishnu
Unnikrishnan, Ms. Azka Sheikh Kalia, Ms. Jahnavi Taneja, Veshal
Tyagi, Danish Saifi.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Sanjay Karol, J.
For convenience and ease of reference, this judgment is divided
into the following parts:
INDEX*
THE CHALLENGE ..........................................................................
4
FACTUAL PRISM ...........................................................................
4
TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT ...........................................................
10
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
989
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT .......................................................
12
RIVAL CONTENTIONS ..................................................................
13
(a)
Appellant ................................................................................
13
(b)
Respondent ............................................................................
17
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS ............................................................
19
Bird's Eye View of the Testimonies .......................................
21
Circumstance One: The arrival of D1 & D2 at the scene of
the crime .................................................................................
35
Circumstance Two: Last Seen Theory ...................................
36
Circumstance Three: Arrest, Confession and Recovery ........
41
Arrest ..............................................................................
41
Confession .....................................................................
44
Recovery ........................................................................
47
Circumstance Four: The Incident of Rape and DNA
Evidence .................................................................................
53
Circumstance Five: Motive ....................................................
60
Circumstance Six: Test Identification Parade ........................
62
Two Additional Points .............................................................
66
One: Other Suspects Remained Unexplored ...............
66
Two: Non-examination of Bhagyalakshmi .....................
67
FAULTY INVESTIGATION ..............................................................
69
CONCLUSION ................................................................................
70
"A criminal trial is not like a fairy tale wherein one is
free to give flight to one's imagination and phantasy. It
concerns itself with the question as to whether the accused
arraigned at the trial is guilty of the crime with which he is
charged. Crime is an event in real life and is the product
of interplay of different human emotions. In arriving at the
conclusion about the guilt of the accused charged with the
990
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
commission of a crime, the court has to judge the evidence
by the yardstick of probabilities, its intrinsic worth and
the animus of witnesses. Every case in the final analysis
would have to depend upon its own facts. Although the
benefit of every reasonable doubt should be given to the
accused, the courts should not at the same time reject
evidence which is ex facie trustworthy on grounds which
are fanciful or in the nature of conjectures."
H.R Khanna J., in
State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh1
1.
A visit to the forest, while a narrow escape for two persons, turned
fatal for another two. The genesis allegedly was greed, with the
accused person wanting to take away jewellery to put to his use, but
the end result was far worse. Two people who were in the prime of
their youth were hastily and brutally made to meet their maker, well
before they should have. This Court is now tasked with examining
the correctness of guilt of the person (the appellant) who, according
to the State, was responsible for this barbarity.
THE CHALLENGE
2.
The present Appeal arises from the judgment and order dated 13th
March 2019, in Referred Trial [MD] No.1 of 2018 passed by the High
Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, which, in turn, was
preferred against the judgment dated 07th March 2018 in Special
Sessions Case No.9 of 2013 passed by the Principal District and
Sessions Judge, Theni, whereby the conviction of the Appellant under
Section 302, 376 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602, came
to be affirmed. The Trial Court imposed the death penalty on the
Appellant-convict, which also came to be affirmed by the High Court.
FACTUAL PRISM
3.
The incident in question, relates to the unfortunate death of two
young people. The prosecution case as emerging from the record,
as also set out by the Courts below, is as follows:
1
(1974) 3 SCC 277
2
Hereinafter referred to as "IPC"
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
991
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
3.1 On 14th May 2011, a young man named Ezhil Muthalvan3, left
his house on his father's motorbike under the pretext of playing
cricket. Similarly, the second victim4 left home that morning telling
her parents that she was going to college. Unbeknownst to
either set of parents, the two victims went to Suruli Falls, which
was apparently a popular meeting point for friends and lovers.
3.2 Already there, was another couple, one Rajkumar (PW-5) and
Bhagyalakshmi5 (not examined), eating food. The two victims
were also seated a short distance away, approximately 60
meters from them. It is alleged that the appellant-convict, first
came to PW-5 and his partner asking Bhagiyalakshmi, to part
with her jewellery, which she did but upon finding that they were
not made of gold and instead were imitation made of brass,
he threw the same back at her and approached the victims.
PW-5 and his partner subsequently fled from the place having
noticed the former having some conversation with the victims.
3.3 The appellant-convict is said to have threatened the victims to
part with money and gold, which they refused. Such refusal,
according to the prosecution is what led to him killing the victims.
3.4 Given that D-2 was missing, her father Ganesan (PW-4) lodged
a complaint dated 15th May 2011 with All Women Police Station,
Theni, being Crime No.30 of 2011 under Section 366 of IPC
alleging that D-1, son of Thanganathi (PW-2) had kidnapped
his daughter.
3.5 On 15th May 2011, Ramesh (PW-11) who was the proprietor of
a tea stall near the Falls, informed forest officials that a bike
of Hero Honda make had been parked, unattended near his
tea stall for the last two days. On receipt of such information,
Forest Officials, namely, Thangaraj (PW-1) and Chelladurai
(PW-6) came to the spot and informed higher officials as also
the Sub-Inspector of Police, Rayappanpatti Police Station about
such fact. The said vehicle was taken and parked at the forest
bungalow. On 18th May 2011, having come to know of this from
3
Hereinafter D1
4
Hereinafter D2
5
Numerous spellings have been used throughout the record for this name. For the purpose of this
judgment, we use 'Bhagyalakshmi'
992
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
a local person Pitchai, PW-2 (father of D-1) went there and
identified the bike to be belonging to him.
3.6 Thinking that since the bike was in the vicinity of the jungle,
D-1 must be nearby, they requested for grant of permission
to search the forest area. However, they were asked to come
the next day. Upon conducting the search the following day,
they found the two victims whose bodies had decomposed
considerably, lying face down. Certain relatives were brought
in, and due identification of the bodies was conducted.
3.7 PW-1 made a complaint pursuant to which Ramakrishnan
(PW-38) the then Sub-Inspector of Police, Cumbum North
Police Station, registered the case as Rayappanpatti P.S.
Cr.No.145/11 under Section 174 Cr.P.C., and forwarded the same
to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam, and also to
the higher officials through Mr. L. Prasath, Spl. Sub Inspector
(PW-39). Vinoji (PW-52) Inspector of Police, Cumbum North
Police Station, took reigns of the investigation. Dr. Juliana
Jeyanthi (PW-37) conducted the postmortem of the victims at
the spot of the crime and noticed the following injuries, while
concluding that both the deaths were homicidal in nature, having
occurred 5-6 days prior to the autopsy :-
"D1
1) A chop wound of size 36 cms x 12 cms through
and through noted over the front, both sides and back
of the neck leaving a tag of skin of the length 4cms
at the bruise side of the back of the neck with the
surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles
vessels, nerves and bones. Margins were regular.
On dissection:
The wound passed downwards and inwards below
the seventh cervical vertebra, vertebral column and
spinal cord with the surrounding bruise.
D2
1) A chop wound of size 12 cms x 4.5 cms x 2.5
cms noted over the left side of the face extending
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
993
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
from left eye to the left side of the chin with the
surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles,
vessels an nerves.
Margins were regular.
On dissection:
The wound passed downwards and inwards injuring
the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves, with the
surrounding bruise.
2) A chop wound of size 12 cms x 4.5 cms x through
and through noted over the right wrist joint, with the
surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles,
vessels, nerves and bones. Margins were regular.
Right hand was missing.
On dissection:
The wound passed downwards and inwards injuring
the underlying muslces, vessels, nerves and bones
with the surrounding bruise.
3) Chop wounds of sizes 2 cms x 1.5 cms x through
and through, 2 cms x 1 cm x through and through,
1.5 cms x 1 cm x through and through and 1 cm x
1 cm x through and through seen over left second,
third and fourth fingers with the surrounding bruise
injuring the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and
bones. Margins were regular.
On dissection:
The wound passed downwards and inwards injuring
the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and bones
with the surrounding bruise.
4) A chop wound of size 23 cms x 10 cms x through
and through noted over the middle of the right leg
with the surrounding bruise injuring the underlying
muscles, vessels, nerves and bones. Margins were
regular. The chopped right leg was missing.
994
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
On dissection:
The wound passed downwards and inwards injuring
the underlying muscles, vessels, nerves and bones
with the surrounding bruise.
5) A chop wound of size 8 cms x 6 cms x through
and through noted over the left ankle joint, with the
surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles,
vessels, nerves and bones. Margins were regular.
On dissection:
The wound passed downwards and inwards injuring
the underlying, muscles, vessels, nerves and bones
with the surrounding bruise.
6) A stab wound of size 4.5 cms x 3 cms x 2.5 cms
noted over the back of the right arm with the
surrounding bruise injuring the underlying muscles,
vessels and nerves. Margins were regular. One end
was pointed and the other end was rounded.
On dissection:
The wound passed downwards and inwards injuring
the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves with the
surrounding bruise.
7) Vaginal introits was torn (5cms x 3 cms x 2 cms)
at 6'O clock position with the surrounding bruise
injuring the surrounding muscles, vessels, nerves.
Margins were irregular. Hymen was torn. Vagina
freely admitted one finger."
3.8 PW-5 apparently came to know of the untimely deaths of the
victims and went to the Police Station on 20th May 2011 to
inform the investigators of the events that took place on the
14th May 2011.
3.9 'Taking cue' from such information, the suspicion of investigators
zeroed in upon the appellant-convict who was eventually arrested
on 28th May 2011. Upon such arrest, he gave a voluntary
confession and effected recovery of certain material objects
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
995
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
from his own residence as also that of his mother-in-law. The
then I.O., noting that both the appellant-convict and the victims
belonged to backward communities, added a charge under
Section (3)(2)(v) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19896, along with two counts of
Section 302; as also 379 and 376 IPC.
3.10 On 6th June 2011, the Police conducted a T.I. parade wherein
PW-5 positively identified the appellant-convict.
3.11 In total, to establish its case, the prosecution examined 56
witnesses and exhibited 77 documents as also 29 material
objects. The appellant-convict pleaded his innocence but,
however, did not examine any witnesses or lead any other
evidence.
TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT
4.
Charges were framed against the accused on 8th October 2013
under Sections 302, 376, 392 r/w 397 IPC and (3)(2)(v) of the
SCST Act. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. The
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni, in Special Session
Case 09/2013 vide judgment dated 7th March 2018 found the
accused (appellant-convict) before us guilty of the offences under
Section 302, 376 and 379, but declared not guilty under Section
392. It was also observed that the charge under SCST Act could
not be taken into consideration. The punishment as awarded is
extracted as under:-
"1. Enemy is sentenced to life for murdering Ezhilmuthalvan
under I.P.C. section 302, and penalty Rs.2,000/- is also
levied, if failed to pay the penalty, he should undergo 2
months of imprisonment.
2. Enemy is sentenced to death under I.P.C. section 302
for murdering the girl accompanied by Ezhilmuthalvan,
death sentence should be carried out by hanging him on
neck until he dies, and no other penalty is sentenced as
the maximum punishment of death penalty is declared.
6
Hereinafter SCST Act
996
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3. Enemy is sentenced to life under I.P.C. section 376 for
the crime proven against him, and penalty of Rs.2,000/- is
also levied, if failed to pay the penalty, he should undergo
2 months of imprisonment.
4. This court is issuing the order that enemy is sentenced to
7 years of severe imprisonment, and penalty of Rs.1,000/- is
also levied, if failed to pay the penalty, he should undergo
1 month of imprisonment.
5. As it is determined that enemy is not the criminal under
I.P.C. section 397, the court releases him under Cr.P.C.
section 235(1) determining that he is not the criminal under
the alternate accusation under I.P.C section 392 accused on
him and, this court determines that Prevention of Atrocities
rule against schedule and schedule tribe cannot be taken into
consideration to grant punishment along with I.P.C. section
302, 376, 397 which has been accused upon the enemy.
6. As the enemy is sentenced to death for number one
crime under I.P.C section 302, it is declared that all the
penalties sentenced under other sections should be carried
out along with the death penalty.
7. It is declared that the judgment declared on this case
and all the documents should be sent to Chennai High
Court to ensure the death penalty sentenced to the enemy
under the Code of Criminal Procedure, section 366(1)
8. Action should be taken to execute the death penalty
sentenced to the enemy only after the death penalty
sentenced to the enemy is ensured by the Honourable High
Court, Chennai, under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
section 368.
..."
THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT
5.
Since the sentence imposed by the Trial Court was that of death by
hanging, the matter travelled up to the High Court in terms of Section
366 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19737, being Referred to
7
Hereinafter referred to as "Cr.PC"
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
997
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
Trial [MD] No.1 of 2018. The High Court considered the evidence
on record under the following heads: -
(a) Last seen theory;
(b) Arrest, confession and recovery;
(c)
T.I. Parade;
(d) DNA Test; and
(e) Motive
The following is a tabular representation of the evidence considered
against each of the above heads:
Sl.No.
Heading
Description
1.
Last seen theory
PWs -2, 3, 5, 8, 25
2.
Arrest, confession and
recovery
PWs-5, 18, 19, 31, 32, 52 &
54; Exhs.P-8, P-75.
3.
T.I. Parade
PW-5
4.
DNA Test
PWs-34, 37, 42; Exhs.P-52
5.
Motive
PW-5
Having examined the documents and exhibits as above, the High
Court found the following circumstances to be established beyond
reasonable doubt against the Appellant-convict :-
"(a) On the date of occurrence, D1 and D2 left their
respective house and came to the place of occurrence
on their own by bike (MO.1).
(b) D1 and D2 were lastly seen alive by PW5 with the
accused.
(c) The accused was seen with weapon by PW25 on the
date of occurrence.
(d) The link between the recovery of MOs.10 and 18 from
the accused and the offence.
(e) The offence of rape committed by the accused was
proved through scientific evidence namely DNA report.
(f) Adverse inference against accused."
998
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
6.
Challenging his conviction and sentence, the Appellant-convict has
approached this Court. We have heard Ms. V. Mohana, learned
senior counsel for the Appellant-convict and Mr. V. Krishnamurthy,
learned senior counsel for the State. To be determined is whether the
Courts below were justified in handing down judgments of conviction
for the offences, as alleged and in connection therewith sentencing
him to death.
RIVAL CONTENTIONS
(a) Appellant
7.
The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant can be
summarised, inter alia, as follows :
Firstly, the learned senior counsel submitted that PW-5 was, on the
whole, an unreliable witness. Going so far as to say that he was a
planted witness introduced by the Police. She highlighted that PW-5's
conduct of silence regarding the incident was unnatural, particularly
as he was aware through Bhagyalakshmi, that D-2 her collegemate
had not attended college the next day. His assumption that D-1 and
D-2 ran away to get married (which is the only plausible explanation
for non-reporting) is without basis since he himself admitted to having
no prior knowledge of any such plans or their relationship to such
an extent;
Secondly, the non-examination of Bhagyalakshmi, is the absence
of a material witness as she is the link between PW-5, D-1 and
D-2, since the former did not know the two victims directly but only
through her;
Thirdly, the T.I.P conducted is unbelievable given it was conducted
after a considerable delay of nine days from the date of arrest of the
appellant-convict. His identity was well-known by such time since
there had been news reports regarding the incident. Further, by
PW-5's own admission, the Police authorities had informed him prior
to the TIP that one Kattavellai @ Devakar had committed the offence.
Still further, he also states that within a week of his statement to the
Police, PW-5 saw the appellant-convict at the Cumbum Police Station;
Fourthly, the testimony of PW-25 is vague and unreliable. He has not
identified the accused particularly such as through clothes recovered
from the appellant-convict nor through T.I.P;
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
999
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
Fifthly, there is no basis for suspicion against the appellant-convict
as on 28th May 2011. The story of the prosecution is that the genesis
of the suspicion is the attempted suicide by the Appellant-convict on
22nd May 2011. However, no credible explanation has been offered
for the suspicion. The FIR pertaining to the attempted suicide was
registered on 23rd May 2011. However, no steps in connection
therewith were taken and neither was any information given to
Royappanpatti Police Station. PW-52 and 54 (I.Os) both state that
they learnt of the suicide only after the arrest;
Sixthly, the circumstances of arrest are suspicious since no records
have been produced regarding appellant-convict's admission in
the hospital during the period 22nd - 25th May 2011. There are no
independent witnesses to the arrest since PW-16 states that he was
called there ten minutes after the arrest. He has also accused the
police of torture at the police station;
Seventhly, the disclosure statement and the subsequent recovery of
articles is surrounded by suspicious circumstances - for instance,
PW-4 identified the chain in Court and deposed that he was shown
a gold chain by the police, it is unclear whether this was the same
chain that belonged to D-2. None of the witnesses mentioned any
distinctive feature thereof. The FIR makes a mention of a gold chain
of 2.5 sovereigns but does not mention the 'ohm' dollar; the weapon
allegedly used for the commission of the offence is not subjected to
any forensic examination; the clothes recovered from the house of
the appellant-convict are not subjected to any forensic examination
and cannot be linked to the crime. The disclosure statement does
not specify all articles such as the jute bag, tiffin box and, therefore,
their recovery is not a consequence of the disclosure statement. The
independent witness, PW-16 does not depose the exact location
of the materials recovered from the house of the appellant-convict;
Eighthly, the DNA evidence cannot be relied on since there are
several gaps in the chain of custody leaving open the possibility of
tampering. PW-37 states that she took the vaginal swab and handed
them over to the Constable on duty but correspondingly PW-41 does
not make any mention thereof when the samples were packaged,
sealed, kept at one location, safely or otherwise, sent to another
location etc., the record thereof is absent. The semen sample of
the Appellant-convict was taken on 13th June 2011, and they were
1000
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
allegedly sent to FSL, Chennai. There is no record of the same being
sent, returned and/or thereafter being stored, preserved or disposed
of. A blood sample was collected from the appellant-convict, but PW37, the doctor concerned, does not testify thereto, nor does PW-52,
the concerned I.O., record anything regarding the same; and
Ninthly, motive has not been established. Various articles other
than the gold chain, also belonging to the victims such as mobile
phone, ring etc., were neither recovered from the spot of the crime
nor from the Appellant-convict. Further, it is not the pleaded case of
the prosecution that he disposed of the articles.
In making the above submissions, the learned senior counsels
referred to certain decisions of this Court, which we have perused
and considered.
(b) Respondent
8.
The Respondent-State submitted, inter-alia, as follows :
First, relying on the observation of the High Court that PW-5, upon
finding out of the death of D1 and D2, he himself went to the Police
Station, it is submitted that there is no actual delay in reporting of
the incident by PW-5;
Second, calling into question the T.I.P. conducted and the identification
made therein, is unjustified since PW-5 himself has never stated that
prior to the T.I.P., he had seen the picture of the convict appellant.
The pictures shown to him, in fact, were only of habitual offenders.
PW-25 who states that he had seen the appellant-convict with a
sickle on the date of the offence, corroborates and lends strength
to the statement of PW-5;
Third, regarding the confession statement (Ext.P-8) it is submitted that
whether or not the object discovered would be considered relevant
or not has to be decided in accordance with State of Himachal
Pradesh v. Jeet Singh8. It is submitted that the credibility of recovery
is sought to be questioned by the appellant saying that the exact
location of the recovery has not been disclosed, however, it has
been - his house, temple near the forest and mother-in-law's house.
8
(1999) 4 SCC 370
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1001
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
In regards gold chain, the submission that PW-4 has categorically
identified the chain recovered, as belonging to D-2; and
Fourth, the testimony of PW-37 clearly establishes the factum of rape
upon D-2. DNA evidence, i.e., vaginal swab, has been clearly and
properly maintained, preserved and utilised. This is said in reference
to testimony of PWs 27, 48 and 34 and exhibits P-37, P-49, P-21,
P-29 and P-30.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
9.
In all 56 witnesses were examined by the prosecution.
10. Unquestionably, there is no eyewitness to the crime. The appellantconvict has been directed to be sent to the gallows on the basis of
circumstantial evidence which, in the considered view of the Courts
below, forms a chain so complete that it rules out any and all other
possibility of any other person, except the accused alone, having
killed D-1 and D-2.
11. The law on this count is exceptionally well settled, and although it
does not require to be elaborately restated, we will refer to a few
judgments for the purposes of immediate recall.
11.1 In Hanumant v. State of M.P 9, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court, speaking through Mehr Chand Mahajan, J., (as his
Lordship then was) observed thus:
"12. It is well to remember that in cases where
the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the
circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully
established, and all the facts so established should
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of
a conclusive nature and tendency and they should
be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one
proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be
a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent
9
(1952) 2 SCC 71
1002
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
with the innocence of the accused and it must be
such as to show that within all human probability the
act much have been done by the accused."
11.2 Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra10 lays
down the 'Panchsheel Principles' which are extracted below:-
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show
that the following conditions must be fulfilled before
a case against an accused can be said to be fully
established:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned "must or should" and not
"may be" established. There is not only a grammatical
but a legal distinction between "may be proved"
and "must be or should be proved" as was held by
this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of
Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 : 1973 SCC (Cri)
1033 : 1973 Crl LJ 1783] where the observations
were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a court
can convict and the mental distance between 'may be'
and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures
from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused,
that is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
10
(1984) 4 SCC 116
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
1003
Kattavellai @ Devakar v. State of Tamilnadu
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and
must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused."
Bird's Eye View of the Testimonies
12. Let us now undertake an individual examination of each of the
circumstances found to be proved by the Courts below, reproduced
supra. In doing so, a bird's eye view of the relevant PWs is necessary.
12.1 PW-1 was the Forest Guard, Surulipatti. He has deposed in
connection with the bike using which D-1 had come to the
location where he ultimately met his end. He was informed of the
unattended bike, which he later parked at the forest bungalow
after informing the higher authorities. He also testified to being
a member of the search party that discovered the bodies of
the two victims. He described the identification undertaken by
the relatives of the deceased and that he lodged a complaint
with the concerned police station regarding the events. He
made a positive identification of the motorbike (M.O.-1) and
the clothes worn by D-1.
In his cross-examination, it has come forth, upon the filing of
complaint the concerned inspector came to the location and
confiscated the corpse.
12.2 PW-2 is the father of D-1. He deposed that when his son
did not return, he individually searched for him, however, to
no avail. He stated that PW-4's second daughter Kousalya,
called the younger brother of D-1 inquiring about D-2, when
it was revealed that even D-1 had not returned home. It is in
this context that a complaint was made before the All Women
Police Station, Theni, alleging that D-1 had kidnapped D-2.
He submitted that prior to these unfortunate events, he had
suspected the involvement of four persons, namely, Arjunan,
Amnbazhagan, Viji and Francies. As such he approached
the High Court wanting the investigation of the case to be
transferred to the CBCID, which was accepted. It has also
come in his testimony that he came to know of the arrest of
the Appellant-convict through the newspaper.
1004
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
12.3 Chellandiammal, PW-3 is the mother of D-1. She deposed
that on 19th May 2011, certain members of her family went
to search the forest where bodies of D-1 and D-2 were
found. Although she was not a member of search party, but
she has described the condition in which the same were
found. She deposed that bodies were brought to the village
where she identified D-1 and, thereafter, cremated per
customs.
In her cross-examination, it is revealed that she did, in fact, go
to Suruli on 19th May 2011. She made a categorical statement
about the identification of Jewellery worn by D-2 through her
parents.
12.4 PW-4 is the father of D-2.