Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Perumal Raja vs. State (2024) INSC 13

Date of the Judgment: January 3, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 13
Judges: Sanjiv Khanna, J., S.V.N. Bhatti, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld solely on circumstantial evidence, even when there are no eyewitnesses? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a case where the accused was convicted based on a chain of circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the deceased’s body parts following a disclosure statement. The bench, comprising Justices Sanjiv Khanna and S.V.N. Bhatti, upheld the conviction, emphasizing the importance of considering all evidence holistically in such cases. Justice Sanjiv Khanna authored the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the murder of Rajini @ Rajinikanth. The sequence of events began when Rajaram, the father of the deceased, returned to Puducherry from France on April 20, 2008, after his son went missing. Upon arriving at his house, he found the place ransacked and his motorcycle missing. He suspected his son and his sister’s husband, Krishnamurthy, of taking the motorcycle. However, he did not file a written complaint at that time.

The next day, on April 21, 2008, Rajaram was murdered. Following this, on April 24, 2008, Arumugam, Rajaram’s father, filed a complaint about his grandson Rajini @ Rajinikanth’s disappearance. This complaint was registered as a ‘missing man’ case. During the investigation into Rajaram’s murder, the appellant, Perumal Raja @ Perumal, was taken into custody. On April 25, 2008, Perumal Raja made a disclosure statement revealing that he and others had murdered Rajini @ Rajinikanth on November 23, 2007, and disposed of his body in a sump tank at Rajaram’s house. Subsequently, the body was moved and thrown into a canal.

Based on this disclosure statement, the police recovered the decomposed body parts of Rajini @ Rajinikanth from a canal on April 26, 2008. Further investigation led to the recovery of additional body parts from the sump tank at Rajaram’s house on April 30, 2008. The recovered body parts were sent for a superimposition test, which confirmed that the skull and mandible belonged to the deceased.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Principal Sessions Judge, Puducherry, convicted Perumal Raja @ Perumal under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Judicature at Madras affirmed this conviction. Other co-accused were acquitted by the trial court, and these acquittals became final. One co-accused was tried as a juvenile and acquitted, and another co-accused, who was initially absconding, was also later acquitted.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which is an exception to Sections 25 and 26 of the same act. Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, prohibits the admission of confessions made to a police officer as evidence. Section 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states that confessions made in police custody cannot be used against the accused unless made in the presence of a Magistrate. However, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, allows the admission of that part of a statement made by an accused in police custody that leads to the discovery of a fact. The specific provision states:

“Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

The Court also considered Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which deals with the relevance of conduct.

Arguments

The prosecution argued that the disclosure statement of the appellant led to the discovery of the body parts and other material objects, which is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They also highlighted the motive of the appellant to acquire the property and the fact that the deceased was missing for months before the recovery of the body parts. The prosecution relied on the superimposition test report to prove that the recovered body parts were indeed that of the deceased, Rajini @ Rajinikanth. The prosecution also argued that the conduct of the accused in pointing out the places of concealment of the body parts is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The defense argued that the prosecution’s case was based on weak circumstantial evidence. They pointed out that the medical officer could not ascertain the exact cause of death due to the decomposition of the body. The defense also argued that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of the medical officer and the forensic expert regarding the recovery of the lower jaw. The defense contended that the disclosure statement should not be relied upon, and the recovery of body parts could not be solely attributed to the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, based on circumstantial evidence, is sustainable?
2. Whether the disclosure statement of the appellant is admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
3. Whether the recovery of the body parts and other material objects based on the disclosure statement is sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered several authorities while arriving at its decision:

Cases:

• Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67]: This case was cited to explain that the fact discovered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, includes the place from which the object is produced and the accused’s knowledge of it.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru [(2005) 11 SCC 600]: This case was used to clarify that the fact discovered under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, must be a concrete fact directly related to the information and must refer to a physical object.
• Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 828]: This case was cited to explain that the information leading to the discovery must be distinct and directly related to the fact discovered, and that the accused must be in police custody.
• State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya [(1961) 1 SCR 14]: This Constitution Bench judgment was relied upon to clarify that the expression “custody” under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not mean formal custody and includes any kind of restriction or surveillance by the police.
• Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar [AIR 1966 SC 119]: This case was cited to explain that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, except to the extent that the ban is lifted by Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Khatri Hemraj Amulakh v. State of Gujarat [(1972) 3 SCC 671]: This case followed the principles laid down in Aghnoo Nagesia (supra).
• Vikram Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab [(2010) 3 SCC 56]: This case was cited to reiterate that formal arrest is not a necessity for the operation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 5 SCC 509]: This case was used to explain that the term “custody” in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, includes any kind of surveillance, restriction, or restraint by the police, and that formal arrest is not required.
• State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy [(1997) 1 SCC 272]: This case was cited to support the interpretation of “custody” in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• A.N.Vekatesh and Anr. v. State of Karnataka [(2005) 7 SCC 714]: This case was cited to support the interpretation of “custody” in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471]: This case was used to highlight that the recovery of a dead body from a place pointed out by the accused is a significant incriminating circumstance.
• Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2013) 7 SCC 45]: This case followed the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (supra).
• Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra [(2015) 1 SCC 253]: This case followed the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (supra).
• State of Maharashtra v. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and Ors. [(2000) 6 SCC 269]: This case followed the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (supra).
• Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam [(2013) 7 SCC 417]: This case followed the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (supra).
• Sandeep v. State of U.P. [(2012) 6 SCC 107]: This case was cited to highlight that recoveries made based on the admissible portion of the accused’s statement are admissible in evidence.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]: This case laid down the five golden principles for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence.
• Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71]: This case was referred to in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) to explain the principles of circumstantial evidence.
• Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar [(1955) 2 SCR 570]: This case was used to explain that failure to provide an explanation can be an additional link in a chain of circumstantial evidence.

Statutes:

• Section 25, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Prohibits the admissibility of confessions made to a police officer.
• Section 26, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Prohibits the admissibility of confessions made in police custody unless made in the presence of a Magistrate.
• Section 27, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Allows the admissibility of that part of a statement made by an accused in police custody that leads to the discovery of a fact.
• Section 8, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Deals with the relevance of conduct.
• Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Deals with the burden of proving facts especially within knowledge.
• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for murder.
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Defines the punishment for causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Perumal Raja @ Perumal, stating that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of circumstantial evidence that proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court emphasized that the disclosure statement of the appellant led to the recovery of the body parts of the deceased, which was a crucial piece of evidence. The Court also noted that the superimposition test confirmed that the recovered body parts were that of the deceased, Rajini @ Rajinikanth.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Pulukuri Kottaya v. King Emperor [AIR 1947 PC 67]*: The Court followed this authority to interpret the scope of “fact discovered” under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu alias Afsan Guru [(2005) 11 SCC 600]*: The Court followed this authority to clarify that the “fact discovered” must be a concrete fact related to a physical object.
• Mohmed Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra [(1976) 1 SCC 828]*: The Court followed this authority to explain the conditions for the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya [(1961) 1 SCR 14]*: The Court followed this Constitution Bench judgment to interpret the term “custody” under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, holding that it does not require formal arrest.
• Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar [AIR 1966 SC 119]*: The Court followed this authority to explain the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 25 and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Khatri Hemraj Amulakh v. State of Gujarat [(1972) 3 SCC 671]*: The Court followed this authority, which applied the principles laid down in Aghnoo Nagesia (supra).
• Vikram Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab [(2010) 3 SCC 56]*: The Court followed this authority to reiterate that formal arrest is not a necessity for the operation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2014) 5 SCC 509]*: The Court followed this authority to explain that the term “custody” in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, includes any kind of surveillance, restriction, or restraint by the police, and that formal arrest is not required.
• State of A.P. v. Gangula Satya Murthy [(1997) 1 SCC 272]*: The Court followed this authority to support the interpretation of “custody” in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• A.N.Vekatesh and Anr. v. State of Karnataka [(2005) 7 SCC 714]*: The Court followed this authority to support the interpretation of “custody” in Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• State of Maharashtra v. Suresh [(2000) 1 SCC 471]*: The Court followed this authority to highlight that the recovery of a dead body from a place pointed out by the accused is a significant incriminating circumstance.
• Harivadan Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat [(2013) 7 SCC 45]*: The Court followed this authority, which reiterated the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (supra).
• Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra [(2015) 1 SCC 253]*: The Court followed this authority, which reiterated the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (supra).
• State of Maharashtra v. Damu S/o Gopinath Shinde and Ors. [(2000) 6 SCC 269]*: The Court followed this authority, which reiterated the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (supra).
• Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam [(2013) 7 SCC 417]*: The Court followed this authority, which reiterated the principle laid down in State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (supra).
• Sandeep v. State of U.P. [(2012) 6 SCC 107]*: The Court followed this authority to highlight that recoveries made based on the admissible portion of the accused’s statement are admissible in evidence.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]*: The Court followed this authority to apply the five golden principles for establishing guilt based on circumstantial evidence.
• Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71]*: The Court referred to this case to explain the principles of circumstantial evidence as was laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra).
• Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar [(1955) 2 SCR 570]*: The Court followed this authority to explain that the failure to provide an explanation can be an additional link in a chain of circumstantial evidence.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• The Disclosure Statement: The fact that the appellant’s disclosure statement led to the recovery of the body parts was a critical factor. The court emphasized that the information provided by the appellant was directly linked to the discovery of the body, making it admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The Recovery of Body Parts: The recovery of the body parts from the canal and the sump tank, as pointed out by the appellant, was a significant piece of evidence. The court noted that the appellant’s knowledge of the precise locations indicated his involvement in the crime.
• Superimposition Test: The forensic evidence, particularly the superimposition test, played a vital role in confirming the identity of the deceased. The court relied on this test to establish that the recovered body parts belonged to Rajini @ Rajinikanth.
• Motive: The court acknowledged the motive of the appellant to acquire the property of the deceased as a factor that reinforced the conclusion of guilt.
• Lack of Explanation: The appellant’s failure to provide any explanation for his knowledge of the location of the body parts was also considered by the court. The court emphasized that the appellant’s silence further strengthened the case against him.

The Court considered the arguments presented by both sides and meticulously analyzed the evidence. The court rejected the defense’s arguments and concluded that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of circumstantial evidence that proved the appellant’s guilt. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s disclosure statement was a crucial piece of evidence, as it led to the discovery of the body parts. The Court also relied on the superimposition test to confirm the identity of the deceased.

The Supreme Court also addressed the defense’s argument that the medical officer could not ascertain the exact cause of death. The Court noted that while the cause of death could not be determined due to decomposition, the medical officer had confirmed that the bones were of a person between 25-30 years of age and that the death had probably occurred six months prior to the autopsy, which matched the description of the deceased. The Court also clarified the alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies of the medical officer and the forensic expert, noting that they had examined different sets of body parts.

The Court also addressed the issue of the appellant’s silence regarding his knowledge of the location of the body parts. The Court held that the appellant’s failure to provide an explanation for his knowledge of the location of the body parts was a significant factor that strengthened the case against him. The Court emphasized that the appellant’s silence, coupled with the other circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to establish his guilt.

The Court also considered the fact that the appellant had been acquitted in the case related to the murder of the deceased’s father, Rajaram. However, the Court held that this acquittal was not relevant to the present case, as the two murders were separate incidents with different sets of evidence. The Court also noted that the co-accused in the present case were acquitted due to lack of evidence against them, and that the disclosure statement of the appellant could not be used against them.

The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of circumstantial evidence that proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court upheld the conviction of the appellant and dismissed the appeal.

“The facts proved by the prosecution, particularly the admissible portion of the statement of the accused, would give rise to two alternative hypotheses, namely, (i) that the accused had himself deposited the physical items which were recovered; or (ii) only the accused knew that the physical items were lying at that place.”

“The court has to analyse which of the hypotheses should be accepted in a particular case.”

“In this circumstance, the failure of the appellant – Perumal Raja @ Perumal to present evidence on his behalf or to offer any cogent explanation regarding the recovery of the dead body by virtue of his special knowledge must lead to a reasonable adverse inference , by application of the principle under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, thus forming an additional link in the chain of circumstances.”

Key Takeaways

• Circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for conviction in murder cases if a complete chain of evidence is established.
• Disclosure statements made by the accused leading to the discovery of a fact are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• The term “custody” under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, includes any kind of restriction or surveillance by the police, not just formal custody.
• The recovery of a dead body at the instance of the accused is a strong piece of incriminating evidence.
• Failure of the accused to explain their knowledge of the location of the body can be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that circumstantial evidence, when forming a complete chain, can be sufficient for conviction in murder cases. The judgment reinforces the importance of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in admitting evidence based on the accused’s disclosure statement leading to the discovery of a fact. The court also clarified the meaning of “custody” under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and reiterated that formal arrest is not a prerequisite for the application of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. This case does not change the previous position of law but reaffirms the existing principles.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Perumal Raja vs. State (2024) INSC 13) underscores the significance of circumstantial evidence in criminal trials, especially in cases where direct evidence is lacking. The court’s meticulous analysis of the facts and application of legal principles demonstrate the importance of a holistic approach in evaluating evidence. The judgment also highlights the crucial role of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, in admitting statements that lead to the discovery of facts. This case serves as a reminder that convictions can be sustained on circumstantial evidence if the chain of evidence is complete and establishes guilt beyond reasonable doubt.