INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU versus JOHN DAVID

21. In the light of the above principle we proceed to ascertain whether the prosecution has been able to establish a chain of circumstances so as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion that the allegations brought against the respondent are sufficiently proved and established. MOTIVE

22. In the present case, in the chain of events, the first point which arises for our consideration is the MOTIVE behind the alleged crime done by the accused-John David. The prosecution has alleged that accused was in the habit of ragging the junior students and accustomed in getting his home work done by the junior students and that is why when the deceased did not subjugate himself to the accused, the accused gathered ill-will against the deceased and therefore, that was the motive for which the accused killed him.

23. For the purpose of proving the aforesaid motive of the accused the prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence of Dr. R. Sampath [PW-3], Karthikeyan [PW-4], Praveen Kumar [PW-5] and Subhash [PW-6], V. Balaji [PW-19] and Ramaswamy [PW-20]. Dr. R. Sampath [PW-3], who is the Head of the Department of Radiology, Annamalai University as also part-time Warden of Malligai Hostel of the University, who in his deposition has stated that on 19.11.1996 at about 8.30 p.m. he had witnessed the junior students standing in front of the Hostel in a row in front of the seniors, including the accused- [2011) 7 S.C.R. John David. Thereafter PW-3 made enquiries on the incident and submitted a report about the incident of ragging to the higher officials which is marked as Exhibit P-3. Karthikeyan [PW-4), 1st year junior student of the college, stated that on 06.11.1996 accused-John David along with one Kumaran came to Hostel and forced him to purchase the tickets of Engineering Cultural Programme, which they purchased with hesitation and this fact was also witnessed by the Warden and Deputy Warden.

Along with PW-4, Praveen Kumar [PW-5) and Subhash [PW-6), both 1st year students of the college, stated c in their evidence that they have written record work for the accused-John David under compulsion and with the fear of being ragged. V. Balaji [PW-19), 1st year student of college, stated in his evidence that the accused-John David along with Kumaran forced them to purchase the tickets for the Cultural Programme and also made them to stand and that Warden, Dean and Deputy Warden got the students released from such ragging. Ramaswamy [PW-20), 1 ~t year student of the college, stated in his evidence that accused-John David used to come to hostel for ragging and to get the record work completed after ragging. PW-19 further stated that on 06.11.1996, after finishing his viva-voce test at about 11.30 a.m. when he returned, the accused came to his room between 11.30 a.m. to 12 Noon and asked him about the deceased-Navarasu.

PW-20 also stated that when he was returning after finishing his viva-voce test, the accused on 06.11.1996 at about 12 Noon asked him about the completion of the test of Navarasu. From the evidence of the above witnesses and other documents on records it becomes quite evident that the record books of the accused were written by other juniors and that accused was in the habit of ragging junior students. The evidence of PWs 19 & 20 also go to prove G that the accused was looking for Navarasu frantically in the morning, which was definitely not for the benefit of the deceased looking at the background behaviour of the accused towards deceased, for there is enough evidence on record to support the case of the prosecution that the accused was having malice and ill-will against with the deceased as he had refused to succumb to the ragging demands of the accused. LAST SEEN ALIVE

24. In the chain of events, the second point which arises for our consideration is the LAST SEEN evidence of deceased with the accused. For proving the said fact that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the deceased, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence of V. Balaji [PW-19] and Ramaswamy [PW-20], G.M. Nandhakumar [PW- 21], R. Mohamed Shakir [PW-22], R. Saravanan [PW-23) and T. Arun Kumar [PW-25). PWs 21 and 22, 1st year students of the college, stated in their evidence that when t~ey were returning from the college at about 12.45 p.m. on 06.l1.1996 they saw the deceased and accused together and accused stopped Navarasu and asked them to leave from there and thereafter they had not seen Navarasu alive. PW-23, Laboratory Attendant of the college, stated in his evidence that he saw both accused and deceased in conversation with each other on 06.11.1996 at about 12.45 or 1.00 p.m. in front of Dean's office.

PW-25, 2nd year college student, stated that he also saw both accused and deceased together at about 2.00 p.m. on 06.11.1996. From the evidence of Dr. Sethupathy [PW-7), Mrs. Alphonsa [PW-8], Prof. Gunasekaran [PW-10) and V. Balaji [PW-19) it also comes out that till the afternoon of 06.11.1996 deceased attended the lectures but after meeting with the accused he did not appear in the lecture/test on the same day and was also absent thereafter from lectures/tests. Ramaswamy [PW-20) also categorically stated that after the viva-voce test held on 06.11.1996, he did not see the deceased alive. From the evidence of all the abovesaid witnesses it is also clear that the deceased was last seen alive in the company . of the accused on 06.11.1996 between 12.45 to 2.00 p.m. and thereafter no one had seen the deceased alive and this fact also supports the case of the prosecution. Moreover accused admitted in his statement filed during question U/s 313, Cr.P.C. (2011] 7 S.C.R. A that he was sitting in the corridor of Dean's office in the afternoon of 06.11.1996, which further corroborates the case of prosecution. SUSPICIOUS CONDUCT OF THE ACCUSED

25. The conduct of the accused is the next chain of circumstance which is heavily relied upon by the prosecution for proving the guilt of the accused and for this it placed reliance on the evidence of Subba @ Vankatesan [PW-28], Vijayarangam [PW-29], Murali [PW-35], Senthilkumar [PW-40), C Joe Bulgani [PW-41] and Rajmohan [PW-42]. PW-28, auto driver, stated in his evidence that on 06.11.1996 at about 8.00 p.m. accused took his auto to the hostel from where the accused went to Chidambaram railway station along with two suitcases. PW-29, Watchman of KRM Hostel, stated in his D evidence that on 06.11.1996 at 8.15 p.m. accused came to hostel in an auto and brought two bags inside the hostel and left in auto immediately thereafter and that the accused returned with the two suitcases at 4.00 a.m. on 8.11.1996. PW-40, student of the college stated that on 08.11.1996 at 4.30 a.m. E he saw the accused sleeping in the varanda of Room No. 319 with two suitca~es nearby because the accused did not have the room keys, as the accused's roommate took away the keys and, when PW-40 offered the accused to come and stay in his room, at about 5.30 a.m. the accused came to his room and F kept a suitcase, i.e., M0-14 and went to sleep in the room of PW-41 along with M0-13.

When PWs 40 & 41 came from mess at about 8.30 a.m. PW-41 complaint about foul smell coming from his room [Room No. 325]. Thereafter, accused took the M0-13 from the room at about 12.30 p.m. This statement of PW-40 was also supported by the statement of G PW-41. PW-42, student of the college, stated that on 8.11.1996 at 12.30 p.m. accused was sleeping in Room No. 325 and that on 9.11.1996 accused along with one other student went to 'B' Mess for lunch but accused did not take the lunch on the ground that his stomach is not alright and on return he saw accused keeping his hand on the wall with sad look on his face. He further stated that when he entered in the room of the accused [Room No. 319] he smelt foul smell and on asking about the same from the accused, the accused replied that it is of the Biriyani which was given to him by his mother. Later at 4.30 p.m. the accused asked PW-42 to drop him at the Chidambaram Railway Station as he wanted to go to his native place and thereafter he dropped the accused along with a briefcase at the Railway Station on the bike of one Rangarajan.

PW-42 also purchased a train ticket for Tanjavur for the accused. PW-42 also stated that on 10.11.1996 he saw c accused standing before Room No. 319 and on asking the accused told that he went upto Trichy and returned back. PW- 35, Receptionist of Hotel Saradharam, Chidambaram stated that on 10.11.1996 at about 8.10 p.m. accused stayed in the hotel along with one Dr. Esthar and they vacated the room at 3.15 a.m. on 12.11.1996. The accused on 14.11.1996 surrendered in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mannarkudi and was remanded to judicial custody till 18.11.1996. On 18.11.1996 the Court ordered for five days police custody of the accused on the condition that the accused should be produced before a Doctor in the Government Hospital, Chidambaram at 10.00 a.m. daily for medical check up. The above said unusual and eccentric conduct of the accused which is unequivocally told by the witnesses makes the conduct of the accused highly suspicious and leads to corroborate the case of the prosecution. CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT OF ACCUSED AND CONSEQUENTIAL RECOVERIES.

26. In the present case, as stated supra, PW-1, father of G the deceased, filed a report with the police for missing of his son on 10.11.1996 which was registered as Crime No. 509 of 1996 [Exhibit-P1]. In the present case the accused after surrendering before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Mannarkudi on 14.11.1996 also gave his confessional [2011) 7 S.C.R. A statement [Exhibit-50] on 19.11.1996 in the presence of Rajaraman [PW-58), Village Administrative Officer for the non- municipal area of Chidambaram, wherein in very clear terms he admitted his crime as is presented by the prosecution. After the surrender of the accused on 14.11.1996 he was lodged in B the Central Prison at Tiruchi. Prosecuting agency in Crime No. 509/96 filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Chidambaram for the police custody of the accused U/s 167 of Cr. P.C., which was allowed by the Court for five days from 18.11.1996 on the condition that the accused should be c produced before a Doctor in the Government Hospital, Chidambaram at 10.00 a.m. daily for medical check up and at 1.30 a.m. On 19.11.1996 the accused made a voluntary confession as stated hereinabove. Also it has been admitted by the Trial Court as also by the High Court that at no stage of 0 trial there is any allegation of torture of the accused in the hands of the police, which clearly proves that the statement made by the accused on 19.11.1996 was given voluntarily and is an admissible piece of evidence. The High Court merely on an assumed basis held that the confessional statement could not have been voluntarily given by the accused without referring to E any particular evidence in support of the said conclusion. The confession was given by the accused in presence of Rajaraman [PW-58), Village Administrative Officer; Mr. Subramanian [assistant of PW-58), who are totally independent persons.

27. In the case of Amitsingh Bhikamsingh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2007) 2 SCC 310 this Court had said that, when on the basis of information given by the accused there is a recovery of an object of crime which provides a link in the chain of circumstances, then such information leading to G the discovery of object is admissible.

28. We may atthis stage, would like to state the proposition of law that only such information which is found proximate to the cause of discovery of material objects, alone is taken as admissible in law and in the present case there are lot of materials which were recovered at the instance of such confessional statement made by the accused only. We may detail out such material findings in this case.

29. At the instance and in pursuance of the said confessional statement given by the accused PW-78, Police Inspector, Annamalai Nagar; Rajaraman [PW-58), Village Administrative Officer; Mr. Subramanian (assistant of PW-58] along with other witnesses went to the south canal of the KRM Hostel at about 7.30 a.m. where he had thrown the head of the deceased after putting it in a zip bag and since the water level c of the canal was high, Fire Service and University Authorities were requested to drain the water, which was accordingly done and in the meantime at about 8.45 a.m. at the instance of accused only M0-3, a rexine bag, was recovered which contained two notebooks belonging to the deceased [MOs 4 & 5). Thereafter, after producing the accused before the Doctors of Govt. Hospital at 10.00 a.m. as per the directions of the cou'rt, the accused, took PW-78 along with other witnesses to Room No. 319 and from there material objects from 9 to 15 and 29 were recovered which included three knifes, one blue colour small brief case, among others and from Room No. 323 and 325 material objects from 30 to 33 were recovered which included blood stained cement mortar.

At about 4.00 p.m. when the search party returned to the boat canal, the zip bag [M0-22) containing a severed human head was recovered at 4.30 p.m. In the instant case the fact that the severed head of the deceased-Navarasu was recovered from the specific place which was indicated and identified by the accused. The recovery of· other material objects at the indication/instance of the accused creates/generates enough incriminating evidence against him and makes such part of the confessional statement clearly admissible in evidence. The fact that the skull found in the water canal of the university belonged to Navarasu-deceased is proved from the evidence of Dr. Ravindran [PW-66), Dr. Venkataraman, [PW-52) and G.V. Rao [PW-77). PW-66 in his evidence has stated that the deceased [2011) 7 S.C.R. A appear to have died because of decapitation of injuries and that-the injury is ante-mortem;:The Doctor also opined that a sharp cutting weapon would have been used 'for causing injuries.

He further stated in his evidence that severing of head and removal of the muscles and nerves of limbs could have B been done by MOs 9 to 11. PW-66 also opined that both the torso and head belongs to one and the same person. Also from the evidence of Dr. Venkataraman, [PW-52) Parasu Dental Clinic, Adyar, Madras it is found that hehad given silver filling on the right upper first molar of the deceased and that he had c removed the left upper milk tooth and removed the root thereof and the said fact was also clearly and rightly found in the post mortem conducted by PW-66 on the head recovered from the boat-canal. The said fact was also proved from the DNA test conducted by PW-77. PW-77 had compared the tissues taken D from the severed head, torso and limbs and on scientific analysis he has found that the same gene found in the blood of PW~1 and Baby Ponnusamy were found in the recovered _. parts of the body and that therefore they should belong to the only missing son of PW-1.

30. In the present case Trial Court relied upon the super- imposition process/test made by Dr. Jayaprakash [PW-65], Assistant Director, Forensic Science Department, Madras, who stated in his evidence that the skull recovered was of Navarasu. Therefore, from the evidence of PWs 65 & 66 it becomes amply F clear that the skull recovered from the boat canal is of Navarasu only.

31. Now, so far as the recovery of limbs and torso of the deceased-Navarasu is concerned, we would like to detail the G recovery of the same, their identification and also their relation insofar as the confessional statement made by accused is concerned.

32. On 7.11.1996 at about 6.00 p.m. Prakash [PW-53] the conductor of Bus [bearing no. T.B.01-2366] having route No. H 21G [from Thambaram suburban of Chennai City to Paris Corner] found a male torso under the last seat of the bus packed 'in white blood stained· polythene lfag with red letfers [marked as M0-16] and thereafter Crime ·No. 1544 of 199? case was registered and investigation was started 1by·G. Boopathy [PW-55], Inspector of Police, E.5, Pattinapakkam PS, Chennai. Dr. Ravindran [PW-66] conducted autopsy/post- mortem at 10.00 a.m. on 8.11.1996 and he found that the deceased have died of decapitation of injuries, he opined that the injuries found on the torso and skull were anti~mortem a'pd the decea~ed would appear to have died of decapitation and he further stated that the respective surface of the fifth cervical c vertebra· of the head are reciprocally fitting into the corresponding surface of the sixth cervical vertebra of'ff1e torso and this articulation was exact in nature and hence he opined that the head and torso belonged to one and the same peraon. c · 33.

The other'.limbs .of the deceased were recovered by Gopalan [PW44]; Sub-Inspector in Marakk~mam Police.Station bn 21.11.1996' in a pale-coloured with yellow, red and green checks in a lungi-like bed-sheet and along ·with it was torn polythene bag and a pale cloth thread. , 34. In the present case there is no. direct evidence to prove that the accused had himself taken the torso and .limbs of the deceased to M~dras and threw the limbs somew,here (while transit.to .. tvi~dras).and also that accus~d ~(riedJhe:P?f~I of torso to •Madras and dropped it in Jhe bus No. 21G at Tamba.ram but, there is.only circumstantial evidence.·· . – ,, 35. dne 'of the clinching evid~nce against: the accused is the two suitcases [MOs 13 & 14]. Raja Chidambaram [PW-37), the room mate of the accused, stated in.his evidence that the two suitcases in which the blood of the deceased was found belong to the accused. He also stated that .M0-22, which is a bag in which the head of the deceased was recovered, also belong to the accused.

Shagir Thabris [PW-38] also corroborated the said fact in his. evidence. Blood found in the suitcases matched with the blood of the deceased which is A blood group 'A'. It is also proved from the evidence of the students adduced in the case that foul smell was emanating from the said two suitcases and that when accused was asked about the said smell, he only replied that it is because of Biryani, which his mother had given him. Subba @ Vankatesan [PW-28], auto B driver, has affirmatively stated that the accused had taken out those two suitcases with him in his auto rickshaw on 06.11.1996 when he dropped him at Chidambaram Railway Station. The hostel chowkidar examined as PW-29 [Vijayarangam] corroborated the said fact. The students of the c hostel, Senthilkumar [PW-40], Joe Bulgani [PW-41], not only spoke about the foul smell emanating from the room where those suitcases were kept but also of the fact that the accused had brought those two suitcases with him when he came back to the hostel on 08.11.1996 morning.

These are indeed 0 circumstantial evidence but all leading to one conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence of killing the deceased. There is however some doubt with regard to the place of occurrence but there is also strong and cogent evidence to indicate that the room mates of the accused, i.e., PWs 37 and 38, were watching a cricket match during the entire afternoon, E evening and till late night on 06.11.1996 in the TV room, and the accused had the room (Room No. 319) all to himself in the afternoon and evening upto 11.00 p.m. The accused left the said room with two suitcases at 8.30 p.m. which is proved by way of evidence of the watchman and auto driver. The room F mate of the accused, viz., PW-38, came back to Room No. 319 at about 11.00 p.m. and slept and on the next day went home. 36. There are enough circumstantial evidence, as discussed above, to hold that it is none else but the accused G who could have caused the concealment of torso and limbs because it was the accused who had severed the head of deceased-Navarasu as found earlier and, therefore, he must have been in possession to the torso and limbs, which were also subsequently recovered and were also proved to be that H of deceased-Navarasu. 37.

Therefore, if we look at the case, we find that the A prosecution has succeeded in proving its case on circumstantial evidence. In the present case all the witnesses are independent and respectable eye-witnesses and they have not been shown to have any axe to grind against the accused. And from the evidence of the several witnesses, as mentioned above, it is B clear that the accused nurtured ill feeling against the deceased as the deceased refused to write the record note for accused; that the deceased was last seen with the accused in the afternoon of 06.11.1996 and he was searching for him very eagerly; that the conduct of the deceased was very weird and c strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also produced stinking smell; the recovery of skull from canal water, material objects, like, note books of deceased, gold chain, blood stained bags, knifes etc.,; and also the evidence of PW-66, PW-65 and PW-77 who have categorically stated that the skull, torso and D limbs recovered were of the deceased only. 38. ltis we!l-settled proposition of law that the recovery of crime objects on the basis of information given by the accused provides a link in the chain of circumstances.

Also failure to explain one of the circumstances would not be fatal for the E prosecution case and cumulative effect of all the circumstances is to be seen in such cases. At this juncture we feel it is apposite to mention that in the case of State of Kamataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy reported in (1999) 8 SCC 715 this C_ourt has held that; the court must have predominance and pre-eminence in F criminal trials over the action taken by the investigating officers. Criminal justice should not be made a casualty for the wrongs committed by the investigating officers in the case. In other words, if the court is convinced that the testimony of a witness to the occurrence is true the court is free to act on it. 39. Hence, minor loopholes and irregularities in the investigation process cannot form the crux of the case on which the respondent can rely upon to prove his innocence when there are strong circumstantial evidences deduced from the said (2011] 7 S.C.R. investigation which logically and rationally point towards the guilt of the accused. 40.

Therefore in our considered opinion prosecution has established its case on the basis of strong and cogent circumstantial evidence and that on the basis of the circumstances proved, there cannot be any other possible or plausible view favouring the accused. The view taken by the High Court is totally erroneous and outcome of misreading and misinterpreting the evidence on record. 41. In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the High Court erred in reversing the order of conviction recorded by the trial Court as the prosecution has established its case. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order of D the High Court and restore the judgment and decision of the trial Court but only with one rider that the sentence awarded shall run concurrently and not consecutively as ordered by the trial court. While doing so we rely upon sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 42.

In the result, the appeal is allowed, bail bond of the respondent is cancelled and the respondent is directed to surrender before the jail authorities immediately, failing which the concerned authorities are directed to proceed in accordance with law. B.B.B. Appeal allowed.