Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Stemming from Abduction: Pattu Rajan vs. State of Tamil Nadu (29 March 2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 29 March 2019
Citation: Not Available
Judges: N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, Indira Banerjee, JJ.
Can a murder case be considered a continuation of an earlier abduction case, thus preventing a separate FIR? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a criminal appeal, focusing on the permissibility of a second FIR for a murder that occurred during the investigation of an earlier abduction. The core issue revolved around whether the murder was a separate incident or a continuation of the abduction, impacting the validity of the second FIR and the subsequent trial. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, and Indira Banerjee, with the opinion authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case involves Accused No. 1, the proprietor of a hotel chain, who developed an obsession with Jeevajothi (PW1), despite her being married to Santhakumar. Accused No. 1 financially supported PW1 and her family, gave her gifts, and interfered in her personal life, even forcing her to undergo medical tests and instructing her not to have sexual relations with her husband. On 01 October 2001, PW1 and her husband were abducted by Accused No. 1 and his associates. Subsequently, Accused No. 2, posing as a well-wisher, instructed PW1 to have her husband meet a press reporter, which was a ruse. On 18 October 2001, PW1 and her husband went to the Sai Baba temple as instructed, where they were forcibly taken into cars by the accused. PW1 was separated from her husband and taken away. On 26 October 2001, Santhakumar was taken away from PW1 and subsequently murdered. PW1, suspecting foul play, lodged a complaint on 20 November 2001, leading to the murder investigation.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs). The Court also considered Section 173(8) of the CrPC, which empowers the police to conduct further investigations. Additionally, Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, which allows for the admissibility of a portion of a confession leading to the discovery of a fact, was also discussed. The Supreme Court referred to its earlier judgment in T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181, which held that a second FIR for the same offense is generally not permissible. The Court also referred to State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, (1964) 3 SCR 297, regarding the determination of whether a series of acts form part of the same transaction. Further, the Court considered Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 8, which held that a second FIR relating to a separate transaction cannot be investigated along with a previous FIR. The Court also referred to Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 1 SCC 732, and Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441, which discussed the maintainability of a second FIR when there are different versions or new discoveries. Finally, the Court also considered Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254, which discussed the importance of the FIR and the permissibility of multiple pieces of information regarding the same incident. The Court also discussed the principles of circumstantial evidence as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the murder was a continuation of the earlier abduction incident, and therefore, a second FIR was not permissible.
• They contended that the first information report (Ext. P1) registered on 20 November 2001, could not have been registered because there cannot be a second FIR for the same incident.
• They argued that the incident was a continuation of the earlier offence of abduction on 01 October 2001, for which a first information was lodged on 12 October 2001.
• The appellants claimed that the FIR in the present case should be treated as a statement under Section 161 of the CrPC and that the proceedings were vitiated.
• They submitted that the first information of the abduction case dated 12 October 2001 (Ext. P3) was used illegally as a substantive piece of evidence.
• The appellants argued that the evidence relating to the last seen circumstance was not put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• They also argued that the identification of the body based on a superimposition test was improper, and a DNA test was necessary.
• They argued that the confession made by Accused No. 2 before PW7 was not admissible in evidence.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the murder was a separate and distinct offense from the abduction, justifying the second FIR.
• The respondent contended that the motive, last seen circumstance, and recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused were proved beyond reasonable doubt.
• The State submitted that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 was believable and trustworthy.
• The respondent argued that the superimposition test was a valid piece of evidence and that a DNA test was not necessary in the presence of other evidence.
• The respondent argued that the portion of the confession of Accused No. 2 that led to the discovery of the body was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

[TABLE] of Submissions

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues for consideration:

1. Whether the incident of murder is merely a continuation of an earlier offense of abduction, thus making the second FIR impermissible?
2. Whether the first information relating to the crime of abduction can be used as a substantive piece of evidence in the murder case?
3. Whether the evidence relating to the last seen circumstance was properly put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC?
4. Whether the identification of the body based on a superimposition test is proper, and whether a DNA test is necessary?
5. Whether the confession made by Accused No. 2 before PW7 was admissible in evidence?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao, (1964) 3 SCR 297 – Regarding whether a series of acts form part of the same transaction.
• T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala, (2001) 6 SCC 181 – Held that a second FIR for the same offense is generally not permissible.
• Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar, (2016) 3 SCC 8 – Held that a second FIR relating to a separate transaction cannot be investigated along with a previous FIR.
• Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 1 SCC 732 – Discussed the maintainability of a second FIR when there are different versions or new discoveries.
• Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab, (2009) 1 SCC 441 – Discussed the maintainability of a second FIR when there are different versions or new discoveries.
• Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254 – Discussed the importance of the FIR and the permissibility of multiple pieces of information regarding the same incident.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 – Laid down the principles of circumstantial evidence.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, 1973 CriLJ 1783– Regarding the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ in establishing guilt.
• Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Limited & Ors., (2009) 9 SCC 709– Regarding the role of expert evidence.
• The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram, (1979) 2 SCC 158– Regarding the advisory nature of expert opinion.
• State of H.P. v. Jai Lal & Ors., (1999) 7 SCC 280– Regarding the advisory nature of expert opinion.
• Baso Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2006) 13 SCC 65– Regarding the advisory nature of expert opinion.
• Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors., (2010) 2 SCC (Cri) 299– Regarding the advisory nature of expert opinion.
• Shankar & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 4 SCC 478– Regarding the use of superimposition for identification.
• Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 12 SCC 288– Regarding the use of superimposition for identification.
• Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David, (2011) 5 SCC 509– Regarding the use of superimposition for identification.
• Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 4 SCC 292– Regarding the use of superimposition for identification.
• Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2013) 14 SCC 434– Regarding the doctrine of last seen.
• Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681– Regarding the doctrine of last seen.
• Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration), (1978) 4 SCC 161– Regarding the standard of proof in criminal cases.
• State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj & Anr., (2000) 1 SCC 247– Regarding the standard of proof in criminal cases.
• Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing & Ors., (2001) 6 SCC 145– Regarding the standard of proof in criminal cases.
• Chaman & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand, (2016) 12 SCC 76– Regarding the standard of proof in criminal cases.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) – Regarding the registration of First Information Reports (FIRs).
• Section 173(8) of the CrPC – Regarding further investigation by the police.
• Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act – Regarding the admissibility of a portion of a confession leading to the discovery of a fact.
• Section 161 of the CrPC – Regarding examination of witnesses by police.
• Section 313 of the CrPC – Regarding examination of the accused.
• Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act – Regarding the opinion of experts.

[TABLE] of Authorities

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on T.T. Antony v. State of Kerala [CITATION] to highlight the impermissibility of a second FIR for the same offense, but distinguished the facts of the present case. The Court used State of A.P. v. Cheemalapati Ganeswara Rao [CITATION] to discuss the factors to be considered in determining if acts form part of the same transaction, concluding that the abduction and murder were separate. The Court referred to Awadesh Kumar Jha v. State of Bihar [CITATION] to support the view that a second FIR for a separate transaction is permissible. The Court also referred to Rameshchandra Nandlal Parikh v. State of Gujarat [CITATION] and Nirmal Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab [CITATION] to discuss the maintainability of a second FIR when there are different versions or new discoveries. The Court relied on Babubhai v. State of Gujarat [CITATION] to discuss the importance of the FIR and the permissibility of multiple pieces of information regarding the same incident. The Court used Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] to lay down the principles of circumstantial evidence. The Court referred to Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] to emphasize the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ in establishing guilt. The Court used Ramesh Chandra Agrawal v. Regency Hospital Limited & Ors. [CITATION] to explain the role of expert evidence. The Court referred to The State (Delhi Administration) v. Pali Ram [CITATION], State of H.P. v. Jai Lal & Ors. [CITATION], Baso Prasad & Ors. v. State of Bihar [CITATION], and Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee & Ors. [CITATION] to emphasize the advisory nature of expert opinion. The Court relied on Shankar & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu [CITATION], Swamy Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka [CITATION], Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu v. John David [CITATION], and Mahesh Dhanaji Shinde v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] to support the use of superimposition for identification. The Court referred to Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana [CITATION] and Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [CITATION] to support the doctrine of last seen. The Court relied on Inder Singh v. State (Delhi Administration) [CITATION], State of H.P. v. Lekh Raj & Anr. [CITATION], Takhaji Hiraji v. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing& Ors. [CITATION], and Chaman & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand [CITATION] to discuss the standard of proof in criminal cases.

Reasoning of the Court:

• The Court reasoned that the murder was a separate incident because it occurred at a different time and place from the abduction, and involved different intentions. The murder was not a continuation of the abduction, but a separate act.
• The Court noted that the first information of the abduction case was used only to establish the motive for the murder, and not as substantive evidence.
• The Court found that the last seen evidence was indeed put to the accused during their examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
• The Court held that the superimposition test was a valid piece of evidence, especially when corroborated by other evidence such as the identification by PW1 and PW2. The Court also noted that a DNA test was not necessary in the presence of other reliable evidence.
• The Court held that the portion of the confession of Accused No. 2 that led to the discovery of the body was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Holding

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the accused. The Court found that the murder was a separate and distinct offense from the abduction and that the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court held that the second FIR was permissible in the circumstances of the case.

Flowchart: Case Progression

Ratio Table

Sentiment Analysis Table