The prosecution case is elaborately stated by the High Court in the impugned judgment in paragraph 2.
It was alleged that all the accused persons on 23.05.2006 hatched a conspiracy to engage the car driven by the deceased and after taking him to a far-off isolated place, kill him and then to steal the car and other personal belongings owned by the deceased. 2 PW-1 tried to contact the deceased on 26.06.2006 over phone, but his phone was found to be switched off mode and PW-1 went to the house of deceased and met PW-3 and PW-3 informed him that after 26.06.2006 at about 6.30 am deceased was not seen.
However, thereafter on the basis of a letter alleged to have been written by A-1 addressed to PW-22 which was received by him on 29.12.2007, by which A-1 had alleged to have confessed that he along with other accused engaged the taxi in question, took the driver (deceased), killed him and buried the dead body and took away the taxi.
During the investigation, on disclosure statement of A-1, PW-30 recovered the car without engine and the gear box from PW-16 as identified by A-1. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused has vehemently submitted that in the present case the prosecution case is based solely on the circumstantial evidence.
2 It is submitted that in the present case both, learned Trial Court as well as the High Court has convicted the accused based on the confessional statement/extra judicial confession. 5 It is further submitted that when PW-22 received the extra judicial confession letter on 29.12.2007, which he handed over to the Police on 30.12.2007 in that letter place of burial of the dead body was mentioned. It is submitted that however, the learned Trial Court rejected the PW-16 evidence and suspected the recovery of M.O.1, M.O.2 and M.O.3 i.e., the car, engine, and gear box, respectively.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/acquisition-of-land-and-deemed-lapse-under-the-act-2013/
8 Now so far as the recovery of engine and gear box of the car recovered from PW-17 is concerned, it is submitted that all the witnesses in connection with the recovery of stolen objects like PW-17 and PW-23 did not support the recovery of car – M.O.1. It is submitted that engine and gear box were found to be in custody of PW-17 on the basis of disclosure statement made by A-1.
We have gone through the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court as well as the High Court while holding the appellant – accused No 1 guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC.
Thus, it was a case of recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused from the place which was disclosed by the accused who can be said to be in exclusive knowledge of the place where the dead body was buried.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/case-type/civil/taxation-of-engineering-design-drawings-goods-or-services/
The prosecution has successfully proved the same by examining PW-16, a person to whom the stolen car was sold by the appellant – accused No 1. Though, PW-17 has turned hostile, however, at the same time, the recovery of engine and gear box from PW- 17 which were recovered on the disclosure statement made by A-1 has been established and proved by the prosecution by examining Police witness – PW-30, we see no reason to disbelieve PW-30 on the aforesaid.
Case Title: JOHN ANTHONISAMY @ JOHN Vs. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (2023 INSC 54)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000466-000466 / 2017
