NON­REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.975 of 2011  Moorthy …..Appellant Versus State of Tamil Nadu                     …..Respondent J U D G M E N T Abhay S. Oka, J. FACTUAL ASPECTS 1. The   appellant   was   convicted   for   the   offences punishable   under   Sections   302   and   201   of   the Indian   Penal   Code   (for   short,   ‘IPC’).     He   was sentenced   to   undergo   life   imprisonment   for   the offence punishable under Section 302 and rigorous imprisonment   for   seven   years   for   the   offence punishable   under   Section   201,   IPC.     Sentences were   ordered   to   run   concurrently.     The   appeal preferred   by   the   appellant   has   been   dismissed   by the High Court by the impugned judgment. Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 1 of 112023INSC739 2. The   deceased   Shanthi   was   the   wife   of   the appellant.     According   to   the   prosecution   case,   the appellant   suspected   that   the   deceased   had   illicit intimacy   with   one   Peethambaram.     On   29 th   May 2006   at   about   9:00   p.m.,   the   appellant   took   the deceased to the bank of Ponnai River and assaulted her   with   a   stick.     The   said   Shanthi   succumbed   to the injuries.   He buried the dead body in the same place.   PW   Nos.3   and   4   are   the   parents   of   the deceased   who   were   enquiring   with   the   appellant about   the   whereabouts   of   the   deceased.     However, the   appellant   told   them   that   the   deceased   was missing. 3. The prosecution relied upon the extra­judicial confession   made   by   the   appellant   before   PW­1 Ganesan   Perumal   in   the   presence   of   PW­2 Tyagarajan   Kannan.     Secondly,   the   prosecution relied   upon   the   recovery   of   the   dead   body   and   the stick   allegedly   used   as   a   weapon   of   assault   at   the instance of the appellant.   Thirdly, according to the prosecution,   the   skeleton   was   identified   by   PW nos.3 and 4 on the basis of the clothes thereon. SUBMISSIONS 4. The   main   submission   of   the   learned   counsel appearing for the appellant is that PW nos.1 and 2 Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 2 of 11 were   complete   strangers   to   the   appellant. Moreover,   the   alleged   extra­judicial   confession   was made by the appellant before the said two witnesses 2   months   and   11   days   after   the   date   of   the incident.     The   learned   counsel   further   submitted that   the   conduct   of   PW­1   who   was   the   Village Administrative   Officer,   does   not   inspire   confidence as   he  immediately   did  not  report  the   matter   to   the police.   The learned counsel further submitted that the   identity   of   the   body/skeleton   was   not established.     He   submitted   that   recourse   was   not taken to DNA test for identification of the skeleton. He   also   submitted   that   there   is   a   material discrepancy   in   the   evidence   of   PW­18   Investigating Officer   and   PW­1   about   the   place   from   which   the stick,   which   was   the   weapon   of   offence,   was discovered.     He   pointed   out   that   PW   nos.8   to   11 who   were   cited   as   witnesses   to   support   the   theory of   last   seen   together,   did   not   support   the prosecution.   5. Dr.   Joseph   Aristotle,   the   learned   counsel appearing for the State submitted that there are no major   discrepancies   and   contradictions   in   the version   of   PW   nos.1   and   18.     He   submitted   that though   PW­8   was   declared   as   hostile,   his   evidence Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 3 of 11 cannot   be   discarded   in   its   entirety.     He   placed reliance   on   a   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of Rameshbhai  Mohanbhai  Koli  &  Ors.   v.   State  of Gujarat 1 .     He   submitted   that   the   discovery   of   the dead body at the instance of the appellant is a very important   circumstance   against   the   accused.     He relied   upon   a   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of Anuj Kumar Gupta  v.  State of Bihar 2 .   OUR VIEW 6. Firstly, we will deal with the prosecution case about   the   extra­judicial   confession.     As   regards extra­judicial   confession,   the   law   has   been   laid down   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Pawan   Kumar Chourasia  v.  State of Bihar 3 .  In paragraph 5 it is held thus : “5.   As far as extra­judicial confession is concerned,   the   law   is   well   settled. Generally,   it   is   a   weak   piece   of evidence.   However,   a   conviction   can be   sustained   on   the   basis   of   extra­ judicial   confession   provided   that   the confession   is   proved   to   be   voluntary and   truthful.   It   should   be   free   of   any inducement.  The  evidentiary value  of such   confession   also   depends   on   the 1 (2011) 11 SCC 111 2 (2013) 12 SCC 383 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 259 Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 4 of 11 person   to   whom   it   is   made.   Going   by the natural course of human conduct, normally,   a   person   would   confide about a crime committed by him only with   such   a   person   in   whom   he   has implicit   faith.   Normally,   a   person would   not   make   a   confession   to someone   who   is   totally   a   stranger   to him.   Moreover,   the   Court   has   to   be satisfied   with   the   reliability   of   the confession   keeping   in   view   the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter   of   rule,   corroboration   is   not required.   However,   if   an   extra­judicial confession   is   corroborated   by   other evidence   on   record,   it   acquires   more credibility.”                                                               (emphasis added) 7. We   have   perused   the   evidence   of   PW­1 Ganesan   who   was   posted   as   the   Village Administrative   Officer   at   the   time   of   the commission   of   the   offence.     He   was   not permanently   posted  in   Village  Seekkarajapuram  as he  stated that at the  time of recording  of evidence, he was transferred as Village Administrative Officer to   Ranipet.     PW­1   admitted   in   the   cross­ examination   that   he   did   not   know   the   appellant before   he   came   to   him   and   allegedly   made   the extra­judicial   confession.     The   incident   is   of   29 th May   2006   but   the   alleged   extra­judicial   confession was made on 10 th   August 2006.   It is impossible to Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 5 of 11 understand   why   would   the   appellant   meet   the Village   Administrative   Officer,   who   was   a   total stranger   to   him,   more   than   two   months   after   the incident   for   making   a   confession.     PW­1   and   the appellant   were   not   known   to   each   other   till   10 th   of August   2006.     Normally   an   accused   will   confide only   with   a   person   in   whom   he   has   implicit   faith. He would not go to a stranger to make a confession of   guilt.     The   fact   that   the   alleged   confession   was made   by   him   more   than   two   months   after   the incident makes it more suspicious. 8. PW­1   claims   that   he   recorded   the   statement of   the   appellant   and   took   a   thumb   impression   of the appellant.  There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution   to  prove the   thumb  impression.    PW­1 claims   that   after   making   the   confession,   the appellant   took   him   to   the   place   of   the   incident which is located near the railway overbridge on the bank   of   the   river   Ponnai.     PW­1   did   not   take   the appellant   to   the   police   station   after   the   alleged confession was made. He admittedly did not inform the   police   immediately   after   recording   the   alleged extra­judicial   confession.     PW­1   claims   that   he visited the place of incident with the appellant who showed him  the scene of  the  alleged offence.   Only Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 6 of 11 thereafter he took the appellant to the police.   It is also pertinent to note that in his cross­examination, PW­1   admitted   that   there   were   6­7   huts   near   the place of residence of the appellant and the families residing therein belonged to the same caste as that of   the   appellant.     Thus,   there   were   people   around before whom the appellant could have confessed. 9. PW­2   was   working   as   an   Assistant   with   PW­ 1.     He   has   deposed   on   the   same   lines   as   PW­1. However,   it   is   not   the   case   of   the   prosecution   that the  appellant  confided with PW­2.   He was  present when the appellant allegedly made an extra­judicial confession   and   was   recorded   by   PW­1.     He   stated that   he   along   with   PW­1   were   taken   by   the appellant   to   the   place   where  he  committed  murder and   buried   the   body.     He   claimed   in   the   cross­ examination   that  he   knew   the   appellant   before   the incident   but   the   appellant   did   not   confide   before him.   10. Extra­judicial   confession   is   always   a   weak piece   of   evidence   and   in   this   case,   for   the   reasons which   we   have   recorded   earlier,   there   is   serious doubt   about   the   genuineness   of   the   prosecution case   regarding   the   extra­judicial   confession. Therefore,   the   prosecution   case   about   the   extra­ Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 7 of 11 judicial confession does not deserve acceptance.   11. Now   we   consider   the   evidence   of   PW­18   who is the Investigating Officer.  He stated that the dead body was found at a depth of 2 ft. after digging.  He stated   in   the   cross­examination   that   the   stick allegedly   used   by   the   appellant   as   a   weapon   of assault was recovered from a bush at a distance of 50   feet   from   the   place   where   the   dead   body   was found.     He   accepted   in   the   cross­examination   that none   of   the   relatives   had   lodged   a   missing complaint. 12. As   far   as   the   alleged   recovery   of   the   dead body at the instance of the appellant is concerned, we   must   note   that   the   dead   body   was   recovered from   a   place   which   was   accessible   to   all.     A   day prior to the alleged discovery at the instance of the appellant,   PW   nos.1   and   2   had   gone   to   the   place where the dead body was found.   It is not the case of   the   prosecution   that   the   place   where   the   dead body was buried was accessible and known only to the appellant.  This also raises serious doubt about the theory of the prosecution about the discovery of the body at the instance of the appellant. Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 8 of 11 13. PW nos.3 and 4 have deposed mainly  on  the issue of  the  identity  of  the dead body  as  they  were present   when   the   dead   body   was   recovered. However,   the   body   had   decomposed   and   only   the skeleton   was   exhumed.     In   the   cross­examination, PW­3   Rajagopalan,   the   father   of   the   deceased, stated   that   the   appellant   came   to   him   one   month prior to the date of knowledge of the murder of his daughter.     PW­3   stated   that   at   that   time   the appellant asked him whether he had murdered the deceased.   He stated that the appellant went to the police station to lodge a complaint.   PW­3 accepted that he did not search for his daughter and did not file any missing complaint.  This conduct of PW­3 is not natural. 14. If we peruse the evidence of PW­1 and PW­18, the   recovery   of   the   weapon   of   the   offence   at   the instance   of   the   appellant   becomes   extremely doubtful.     PW­1   deposed  that   the  stick   was   buried 1 ft deep in the river bank about 5 ft away towards the west of the place in which the body was buried. However, PW­18 stated that the stick was recovered from   a   bush   at   a   distance   of   about   50   ft.   on   the north of the place where the dead body was buried. This also makes the prosecution case vulnerable as Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 9 of 11 far   as   the   discovery   of   the   stick   at   the   instance   of the appellant is concerned. 15. Though the respondent tried to rely upon the evidence of PW­8 who has been declared hostile, we find that he had made a general statement that he had   seen   the   appellant   and   deceased   together   two years   back.     Moreover,   the   other   witnesses examined   to   prove   the   last   seen   together   theory were   declared   hostile.   Thus,   the   prosecution   could not establish the last seen together theory.   16. There is serious doubt about the genuineness of   the   prosecution  case  regarding  the   recovery   of   a dead body at the instance of the appellant and the recovery of the alleged instrument of the offence at the instance of the appellant.  Most importantly, for the   reasons   we   have   recorded   earlier,   it   is   not possible to accept the case of the prosecution which is   entirely   based   on   the   extra­judicial   confession made   by   the   appellant.     Thus,   there   was   no   legal evidence on record to convict the appellant.   In any case, the guilt of the appellant has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. 17. Accordingly,   the   appeal   is   allowed.     The judgment  and  order   dated  31 st   March 2008 passed by   the   Court   of   Additional   District   and   Sessions Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 10 of 11 Judge   in   Sessions   Case   No.24   of   2008   as   well   as the   impugned   judgment   and   order   dated   28 th January   2009   passed   by   the   High   Court   of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.394 of 2008   are   hereby   set   aside   and   the   appellant   is acquitted of the offences alleged against him. 18. As   the   appellant   is   on   bail,   his   bail   bonds stand cancelled. ……………………………J. [ABHAY S. OKA] ..…………………………J. [SANJAY KAROL]  New Delhi August 18, 2023. Crl.A.No.975 of 2011 Page 11 of 11