The appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’).
The prosecution relied upon the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before PW-1 Ganesan Perumal in the presence of PW-2 Tyagarajan Kannan. 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.
Firstly, we will deal with the prosecution case about the extra-judicial confession.
As regards extra-judicial confession, the law has been laid down by this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. We have perused the evidence of PW-1 Ganesan who was posted as the Village Administrative Officer at the time of the commission of the offence.
PW-1 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. He was present when the appellant allegedly made an extra-judicial confession and was recorded by PW-1.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/extension-of-benefit-of-doubt-in-criminal-convictions/
He stated in the cross-examination 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.
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.
PW-1 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.
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.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/vicarious-liability-under-section-34-of-ipc/
As the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds stand cancelled.
Case Title: MOORTHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY THE SECRETARY
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000975-000975 / 2011
