கொலையாளி ஜான் டேவிட், குரூரமாக கொலையுண்ட நாவரசு, தாமதமான நீதி!
சென்னை உயர்நீதி மன்றத்திற்கு உச்சநீதி மன்றம் கண்டனம்: 1997ல் ஜான் டேவிட் என்ற மருத்துவ மாணவன், தனது சக-மாணவன் நாவரசு என்பவனைக் கொலை செய்தான். பிறகு குரூரமாக அங்கம்-அங்கமாக வெட்டி முண்டத்தை பார்சல் செய்து சென்னைக்கு அனுப்பினான், மற்ற பகுதிகளை வீசியெறிந்தான். 1998ல் இதனால், சிதம்பரம் கீழ்நீதி மன்றம், தீர விசாரித்து, இரட்டை ஆயுள் தண்டனை அளித்தது. ஆனால், 1998ல் ஜான் டேவிட் தரப்பில், போதிய ஆதாரங்கள் இல்லை என்று சென்னை உயர்நீதி மன்றத்தில் வழக்குத் தொடுக்கப் பட்டது. 2001ல் அதன்படியே, சென்னை உயர்நீதி மன்றம் அவனை விடுவித்தது. ஆனால், 2002ல் தமிழக அரசு, உச்சநீதி மன்றத்தில் மேல்முறையீடு செய்தது. இதனை விசாரித்த உச்சநீதி மன்றம், 20-04-2011 அன்று ஜான் டேவிட்டிற்கு அளித்த தண்டனை சரியானதே என்று தீர்ப்பளித்ததுடன், சென்னை உயர்நீதி மன்றம் இவ்வாறு மெத்தனமாக நடந்துகொண்டதற்கு, கண்டனத்தைத் தெரிவித்துள்ளது. நீதிபதிகள் மீதும் அதிருப்தியை வெளியிட்டுள்ளது.
1997ல் நாவரசனைக் கண்டம் துண்டமாக வெட்டிக் கொன்றது: மருத்துவக் கல்லூரி மாணவர் நாவரசு கொலை வழக்கில், அவரது சீனியர் மாணவரான குற்றவாளி ஜான் டேவிட்டிற்கு செஷன்ஸ் கோர்ட் விதித்த இரட்டை ஆயுள் தண்டனையை, சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் உறுதி செய்தது[1]. சென்னை பல்கலைக் கழக முன்னாள் துணைவேந்தர் பொன்னுசாமி மகன் நாவரசு (17); 1996ம் ஆண்டு, கடலூர் மாவட்டம், சிதம்பரத்தில் உள்ள அண்ணாமலை பல்கலைக் கழக ராஜா முத்தையா மருத்துவக் கல்லூரியில் சேர்ந்தார். கல்லூரி விடுதியில் தங்கி படித்து வந்த நாவரசு, அதே ஆண்டு நவம்பர் 6ம் தேதி, வகுப்பிற்கு சென்றவர் விடுதிக்குத் திரும்பவில்லை. நவம்பர் 7ம் தேதி, சென்னையில் மாநகர பஸ் ஒன்றில் கேட்பாரற்று கிடந்த சூட்கேசில், தலை, கை, கால்கள் வெட்டி எடுக்கப்பட்ட ஆண் உடல் மட்டும் கிடந்தது. இதுகுறித்து சென்னை மாநகர போலீசார் வழக்கு பதிந்து, கொலை செய்யப்பட்டவர் யார் என்பது குறித்து விசாரித்து வந்தனர். நாவரசு காணாமல் போனது குறித்து அவரது தந்தை பொன்னுசாமி, நவம்பர் 10ம் தேதி கொடுத்த புகாரின் பேரில், அண்ணாமலை நகர் போலீசார் வழக்கு பதிந்து விசாரணை மேற்கொண்டனர். அதில், நாவரசுவை நவம்பர் 6ம் தேதி மதியம், அதே மருத்துவக் கல்லூரியில் படிக்கும் இரண்டாம் ஆண்டு மாணவர் ஜான் டேவிட் தனது அறைக்கு அழைத்துச் சென்றது தெரிய வந்தது. நவம்பர் 11ம் தேதி ஜான் டேவிட், ராஜமன்னார்குடி மாஜிஸ்திரேட் கோர்ட்டில் சரணடைந்தார். அவரை போலீசார், நவம்பர் 18ல் தங்கள் காவலில் எடுத்து விசாரித்தனர். அதில், தேர்வு எழுதி விட்டு வந்த நாவரசுவை, ஜான் டேவிட் வழிமறித்து தனது அறைக்கு அழைத்துச் சென்று ராகிங் செய்துள்ளார்.அப்போது, ஜான் டேவிட் தாக்கியதில் நாவரசு மயங்கி விழுந்துள்ளார். அவர் இறந்து விட்டதாகக் கருதிய ஜான் டேவிட், வெளியில் தெரியாமல் இருக்க, தனது படிப்பிற்காக ஆய்வகக் கூடத்தில் பயன்படுத்தும், “டிசக்ஷன்’ கருவிகளை பயன்படுத்தி நாவரசுவின் தலை, கைகள் மற்றும் கால்களை தனித்தனியாக துண்டித்துள்ளார்.
வெட்டிய உடல் பகுதிகளை பல இடங்களில் போட்டது: தலையை பாலிதீன் கவரில் சுற்றி, கல்லூரி வளாகத்தில் உள்ள குட்டையில் வீசியுள்ளார். பின்னர் உடலை பாலிதீன் கவரில் சுற்றி, பெரிய சூட்கேசில் அடைத்துள்ளார். அதேபோன்று, கைகள் மற்றும் கால்களை தனியாக, “பேக்’ செய்து, சென்னை செல்லும் ரயிலில் ஏற்றிச் சென்றுள்ளார். செல்லும் வழியில், கைகள் மற்றும் கால்களை ஆற்றில் வீசியுள்ளார். உடல் இருந்த சூட்கேசை, சென்னையில் டவுன் பஸ்சில் வைத்துவிட்டு சிதம்பரம் திரும்பி வந்ததும், போலீசார் சந்தேகிக்கவே கோர்ட்டில் சரணடைந்தது தெரிய வந்தது.அதைத் தொடர்ந்து, போலீசார் ஏற்கனவே பதிவு செய்த வழக்கை கொலை வழக்காக மாற்றி விசாரணை நடத்தினர். ஜான் டேவிட் குறிப்பிட்ட அண்ணாமலை பல்கலைக் கழக வளாகத்தில் உள்ள குட்டையில் தேடியதில், நாவரசுவின் தலை சிக்கியது; செங்கல்பட்டு அருகே கால்கள் சிக்கின. இதையும், சென்னையில் கண்டெடுக்கப்பட்ட உடலில் இருந்து எடுத்த திசுக்களை ஆய்வு செய்ததில், இறந்தது நாவரசு என்பது உறுதி செய்யப்பட்டது.கல்லூரியில், “ராகிங்’ கொடுமையால் மாணவர் நாவரசு கொடூரமான முறையில் கொலை செய்யப்பட்ட சம்பவம், உலகளவில் பெரும் பீதியை ஏற்படுத்தியதைத் தொடர்ந்து, இந்த வழக்கில் தமிழக அரசு சிறப்பு கவனம் செலுத்தியது. ஜான் டேவிட் மீது 1997ம் ஆண்டு செப்டம்பர் 1ம் தேதி, கடலூர் செஷன்ஸ் கோர்ட்டில் குற்றப்பத்திரிகை தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டது. இந்த வழக்கில், அரசு தரப்பில் சிறப்பு வக்கீலாக முன்னாள் நீதிபதி கந்தசாமியும், ஜான் டேவிட் தரப்பில் பிரபல வக்கீல் விருத்தாசலம் ரெட்டியாரும் ஆஜராகி வாதிட்டனர்.
கீழ்நீதிமன்றத்தில் தண்டனை, உயர்நீதி மன்றத்தில் விடுதலை! நீதிபதி சிங்காரவேலு முன்னிலையில் நடந்த இந்த வழக்கில், 78 சாட்சிகள் விசாரிக்கப்பட்டனர்; 120 ஆவணங்கள் தாக்கல் செய்யப்பட்டன.வழக்கை விசாரித்த நீதிபதி சிங்காரவேலு, 1998, மார்ச் 11ம் தேதி தீர்ப்பு கூறினார். அதில், ராகிங் காரணமாக நாவரசுவை கொடூரமான முறையில் கொலை செய்த குற்றத்திற்கு ஆயுள் தண்டனையும், கொலை செய்த தடயங்களை மறைத்ததற்காக மற்றொரு ஆயுள் தண்டைன என, ஜான் டேவிட்டிற்கு இரட்டை ஆயுள் தண்டனை விதித்து தீர்ப்பு கூறினார். அதைத் தொடர்ந்து ஜான் டேவிட், கடலூர் மத்திய சிறையில் அடைக்கப்பட்டார்.கடலூர் செசன்ஸ் கோர்ட் அளித்த தீர்ப்பை எதிர்த்து ஜான் டேவிட், சென்னை ஐகோர்ட்டில் மேல்முறையீடு செய்தார். வழக்கை விசாரித்த நீதிபதி, சந்தேகத்திற்கு இடமின்றி குற்றம் நிரூபிக்கப்படாததால், ஜான் டேவிட்டை விடுதலை செய்து உத்தரவிட்டார்.
மேல்முறையீடு செய்த தமிழக அரசு: உலகமே அச்சுறும் வகையில் நடந்த கொடூர கொலை வழக்கில் கைதான ஜான் டேவிட்டிற்கு விதிக்கப்பட்ட தண்டனையை ஐகோர்ட் ரத்து செய்ததை எதிர்த்து தமிழக அரசு, டில்லி சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டில் மேல்முறையீடு செய்தது. இந்த வழக்கை விசாரித்த நீதிபதிகள் தல்வீர் பண்டாரி, முகுந்தகம் சர்மா ஆகியோர் அடங்கிய சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் பெஞ்ச், “மருத்துவக் கல்லூரி மாணவர் நாவரசுவை கொடூரமான முறையில் கொன்ற, அவரது சீனியர் மாணவர் ஜான் டேவிட்டிற்கு, கடலூர் செஷன்ஸ் கோர்ட் விதித்த இரட்டை ஆயுள் தண்டனை சரியானதே’ என, தீர்ப்பளித்தது.
ஜான் டேவிட் சரணடைய உத்தரவு: நாவரசு கொலை வழக்கில் நீதிபதிகள் எழுதிய 41 பக்க தீர்ப்பில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளதாவது:விசாரணை நடவடிக்கைகளில் நடந்துள்ள சிறு தவறுகளை வைத்து, வழக்கில் உண்மையில்லை என, ஒட்டு மொத்தமாக கூறி விட முடியாது. இந்த வழக்கில் பலமான சூழ்நிலை ஆதாரங்கள் உள்ளன. ஜான் டேவிட் தான் குற்றவாளி என்பதை தர்க்க ரீதியாகவும், நுட்பமான வகையிலும் விசாரணை அதிகாரிகள் நிரூபித்துள்ளனர். இந்த வழக்கை ஐகோர்ட் கையாண்ட விதம் சரியில்லை. சாட்சியங்கள் எல்லாம் திசை திருப்பப்பட்டுள்ளன.ஜான் டேவிட்டிற்கு விதிக்கப்பட்ட இரட்டை ஆயுள் தண்டனையை, அவர் ஏக காலத்தில் அனுபவிக்க வேண்டும். தொடர்ச்சியாக அனுபவிக்க வேண்டியதில்லை. தண்டனை பெற்ற ஜான் டேவிட் உடனடியாக சிறை அதிகாரிகளிடம் சரண் அடைய வேண்டும். இல்லையெனில், அவருக்கு எதிராக சட்டப்படி நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க வேண்டும்.இந்த வழக்கின் உண்மை நிலவரங்களை பார்க்கையில் மிகவும் அதிர்ச்சி அளிப்பதாக உள்ளது. மிகக் கொடூரமான முறையில் இளம் மாணவர் ஒருவர் கொல்லப்பட்டுள்ளார். அவரின் உடலை துண்டு துண்டாக வெட்டியது கொடூரமான மற்றும் அச்சமூட்டும் செயல்.இவ்வாறு நீதிபதிகள் தெரிவித்துள்ளனர்.
ஆஸ்திரேலியாவில் இருக்கிறாரா ஜான் டேவிட்? மாணவர் நாவரசு கொலை வழக்கில் குற்றம் சாட்டப்பட்ட ஜான் டேவிட்டிற்கு, கடலூர் செஷன்ஸ் கோர்ட் இரட்டை ஆயுள் தண்டனை விதித்தது. அதை எதிர்த்து ஜான் டேவிட், சென்னை ஐகோர்ட்டில் மேல் முறையீடு செய்தார். வழக்கை விசாரித்த நீதிபதி, போதிய சாட்சி இல்லாத காரணத்தால், ஜான் டேவிட்டை விடுதலை செய்து உத்தரவிட்டார்.ஆயுள் தண்டனையிலிருந்து விடுதலையான அவர், கிறிஸ்தவ மத போதகர் படிப்பு முடித்து ஆஸ்திரேலியா சென்று விட்டதாகக் கூறப்படுகிறது. ஆனால், ஐகோர்ட் தீர்ப்பை தள்ளுபடி செய்து, செஷன்ஸ் கோர்ட் தீர்ப்பை தற்போது சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் உறுதி செய்துள்ளது.
தமிழக போலீஸாரின் நிலை: இந்த தீர்ப்பைத் தொடர்ந்து, ஜான் டேவிட் தாமாகவே முன் வந்து கோர்ட் அல்லது போலீஸ் ஸ்டேஷனில் சரணடைய வேண்டும். தற்போது அவர் வெளிநாட்டில் உள்ளதால், அங்குள்ள இந்திய தூதரகத்தில் கூட சரணடையலாம்.அப்படி இல்லாத பட்சத்தில், கோர்ட் மூலம் தண்டனை பிடி ஆணை பிறப்பிக்கப்படும். அதன் பிறகு அவர் உள்நாட்டில் இருந்தால், அவரது பாஸ்போர்ட் முடக்கம் செய்யப்பட்டு பின்னர் போலீசாரால் கைது செய்யப்படுவார். வெளிநாட்டில் இருந்தால், நம் நாட்டில் உள்ள அந்நாட்டின் தூதரகத்திற்கும், அந்த நாட்டில் உள்ள நம் நாட்டு தூதரகத்திற்கும் கோர்ட் உத்தரவு அனுப்பி வைக்கப்படும். அதன் பின்னர் ஜான் டேவிட்டை அந்நாட்டு போலீசார் கைது செய்து, அங்குள்ள நம் நாட்டு தூதரகத்தில் ஒப்படைப்பர். பின்னர் இந்தியா கொண்டு வரப்பட்டு, கடலூர் கோர்ட்டில் ஆஜர்படுத்தப்பட்டு பின்னர் சிறையில் அடைக்கப்படுவார் என, போலீஸ் தரப்பில் கூறப்படுகிறது.
ஜான் டேவிட் குறித்த தகவல் சேகரிக்க 2 தனிப்படை: எஸ்.பி., : சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட் தீர்ப்புகுறித்து கடலூர் எஸ்.பி., அஷ்வின் கோட்னீசிடம் கேட்டபோது, “இந்த வழக்கில் ஜான் டேவிட்டிற்கு கடலூர் கோர்ட் அளித்த தீர்ப்பு சுப்ரீம் கோர்ட்டில் உறுதி செய்யப்பட்டுள்ளது. இதற்கான உத்தரவு எங்களுக்கு கிடைக்கவில்லை. இருந்தாலும் ஜான் டேவிட் தற்போது எங்குள்ளார் என்பது குறித்த தகவல்களை சேகரிக்க அண்ணாமலை நகர் இன்ஸ்பெக்டர் சுப்ரமணியன், சிதம்பரம் டவுன் இன்ஸ்பெக்டர் கார்த்திகேயன் ஆகியோர் தலைமையில் இரண்டு தனிப்படைகள் அமைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன[2]. கோர்ட் உத்தரவு கிடைத்த பின் ஜான் டேவிட்டை கைது செய்ய நடவடிக்கை எடுக்கப்படும்’ என்றார்.
குறிச்சொற்கள்: இரட்டை ஆயுள் தண்டனை, உச்சநீதி மன்றம், கீழ்நீதி மன்றம், சிதம்பரம், சென்னை உயர்நீதி மன்றம், ஜான் டேவிட், நாவரசு, போதிய ஆதாரங்கள்
8:22 முப இல் ஏப்ரல் 25, 2011 |
Satanic past of church-going John David haunts neighbours
Karthikeyan Hemalatha, TNN | Apr 25, 2011, 02.28am IST
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/Satanic-past-of-church-going-John-David-haunts-neighbours/articleshow/8075720.cms
Chennai: Residents of III Main Road in Bhakthavatchalam Nagar, Adyar are shocked that John Marimuthu, who lived in their neighbourhood, is actually John David, convicted for murdering his mate Navaarasu at Raja Annamalai Medical University in 1996. John David’s family moved into the apartment complex on III Main Road in 2001, according to some residents.
On Sunday, a resident of the apartment complex that John Marimuthu stayed in preferred to stay indoors after she read the newspaper. “No comments,” she said shutting the door.
Many others were surprised that the “quiet man” they saw every day was a murderer. “We’ve been neighbours for around ten years. Never once did I imagine he could be a brutal murderer,” said Raju, a neighbour. Asked if there was a fear in the neighbourhood now, he said, “He is a young educated man who committed a horrendous mistake on impulse. I don’t there is anything to fear. I would have been scared if he was professional killer.”
A few remenbered him as one who didn’t have much of a life apart from work and home. “I never saw him come home with friends or relatives. Every Sunday he went to church with his mother. Once in a while, I would see him smoking in a tea stall two km away,” said Manohar, a cab driver.
John David’s mother Esther was the president of the residents welfare association of the apartment comples. “Any communication that she had to send to other residents was sent through me. She never socialized much,” said the watchman at the complex.
John’s lawyer Padmanabhan, however, says his client is innocent. “All the evidence used in court is circumstantial. There is no direct evidence to prove he is the murderer. His confession came 12 hours after being in police custody,” he said.
The case has been a stepping stone for anti-ragging laws in operation now. Tamil Nadu was one of the first to bring out an anti-ragging act. ‘The Prohibition of Ragging Act’ was passed the same year as Naavarasu’s murder, 1996.
In May 2007, the Raghavan Committee suggested to the Supreme Court to include ragging as a separate section in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Based on this recommendation, the Supreme Court passed the Anti-Ragging Act making all educational institutions obligatory to file a F.I.R. if any incident of ragging is reported.
9:11 முப இல் ஏப்ரல் 25, 2011 |
‘ REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2002
Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu …. Appellant
Versus
John David …Respondent
JUDGMENT
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.
1.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated
05.10.2001 passed by the High Court of Madras whereby the High Court
has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein. The High
Court acquitted the respondent under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 342
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”) by reversing the
Judgment and order dated 11.03.1988 rendered by the Court of
Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997.
2.The facts of this case are very shocking and very distressing.
Murder is committed of a young boy, the only son of his parents,
who at the relevant time was studying for a medical degree. The
1
manner in which he was killed and his dead body was disposed of
after cutting it into different pieces was very gruesome and
ghastly. The person in the dock and who was accused of the crime
was another senior student in the same campus.
3.Brief relevant facts leading to the registration of the first
information report and giving rise to the present appeal are being
set out hereunder.
4.In the academic year of 1995-96 the respondent-accused was studying
in the senior first year course of MBBS and the deceased-Navarasu,
son of Dr. P.K. Ponnusamy [PW-1], a retired Vice-Chancellor of
Madras University, was studying in the junior first year course of
MBBS in Raja Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai University,
Annamalai Nagar. The respondent was staying in room no. 319 of KRM
hostel and the deceased was staying in room no. 95 in E.1 Malligai
Hostel belonging to the same medical college campus. PW-1 returned
from his foreign trip on 07.11.1996 and was waiting for the arrival
of his son-Navarasu from college to celebrate Diwali which in that
relevant year fell on 10.11.96. When Navarasu did not return home
till 09.11.1996, PW-1 started enquiring from the friends of his son,
available at Madras but no information of his whereabouts could be
gathered by the father. PW-1 then on 09.11.1996 rang up the
university authorities to find out and ascertain the whereabouts of
his son. When he was informed that the college authority found his
2
hostel room locked and when it was broken upon, it was found that
his belongings along with a small box were lying in the room but he
was not available in the room. The college authorities and the
father were of the opinion that Navarasu had not left for Diwali to
Madras. PW-1 thereafter rushed to the University on 10.11.96 and
made a complaint of missing of his son at about 11.30 p.m. on
10.11.96 which was registered as Crime No. 509 of 1996 [Exhibit-P1].
5.While this process was going on and without the knowledge of
Annamalai Nagar Police, a torso was recovered at about 8.30 a.m. on
07.11.1996 by G. Boopahty, Inspector of Police, E.5 Pattinapakkam
[PW-55], from the PTC Bus Depot at Mandaiveli, Madras based on the
information given by Prakash [PW-53], conductor of the bus route NO.
21G. The said recovered torso was sent for post-mortem after
inquest. The Annamalai Nagar Police after registering the missing
report started investigation and during the course of such
investigation gathered materials and also received information from
various persons including students of the college pointing the guilt
towards the accused, who was also found absconding from the college
premises from 12-14.11.1996. On 14.11.1996 the accused surrendered
himself before the Judicial Magistrate, Mannargudi. The message of
his surrender was conveyed to the Annamalai Nagar PS, which got the
police custody for five days of the accused from 18.11.1996. On
19.11.1996 at about 1.30 a.m. the accused gave a confessional
statement stating that he has put the severed head of the deceased
3
in the boat-canal within the University campus. Pursuant to the said
confession, the head was also recovered. Annamalai Nagar PS on
20.11.1996 asked E5. Pattinapakkam PS for sending the records
connected with the torso recovered at Madras on the suspicion that
it may belong to the severed head of the deceased-Navarasu, which
was recovered at the instance of the accused. Dr. K. Ravindran [PW-
66] conducted autopsy/post-mortem of the head at 10.00 am on
21.11.1996. On 22.11.1996 a message was received from Villupuram
Control Room which was forwarded to Annamalai Nagar PS which
mentioned that three human bones femur, tibia and fibula have been
recovered at 1.30 a.m. on 21.11.1996 from the sea-shore of Konimedu
of Merkanam based on the information given by the concerned Village
Administrative Officer-Nagarajan [PW-43]. Post mortem of the limbs
were conducted by Dr. Srinivasan [PW-45] and later limbs were sent
to PW-66. PW-66 after examining the severed head, the torso and
three human bones above mentioned, found that there are scientific
materials to hold that they belong to a single individual and also
the fact that they belong to deceased-Navasaru. The father of the
deceased PW-1 and Thandeeswaran [PW-60], nephew of PW-1, also
identified and confirmed that the head and torso are of the
deceased. For confirming the said fact, the sample blood of PW-1 and
his wife Baby Ponnusamy [mother of Navasaru] was examined by Dr.
G.V. Rao [PW-77] at Hyderabad by DNA test. PW-77 compared the
tissues taken from the severed head, torso and limbs and on
4
scientific analysis he 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.
6.The prosecution’s version of facts leading to the present case are
that on 06.11.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused-John David [first
year senior medical student of Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai
Nagar] took away Navarasu-deceased [first year junior medical
student of Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai Nagar] and subjected
him to severe ragging in Room No. 319 of KRM Hostel of the college
and when the latter did not subjugate himself to the accused,
accused caused head injury to the deceased and when Navarasu-
deceased was lying on the ground unconscious, the accused severed
his head and limbs with the help of stainless steel knives and
removed his gold ring, watch and gold chain and caused his death.
After doing such gruesome act and with the intention of hiding the
evidence and also to show his alibi he put the head and the gold
articles of Navarasu-deceased in a zip bag and threw it into canal
water near the hostel and burnt the bloodstained clothes of the
deceased in the open terrace of the hostel building and took the
torso in a suitcase along with the limbs in a train to Madras and
threw the limbs in a river when the train crossed Cuddalore and put
the torso in a bus at Tambaram.
5
7.On completion of investigation, the police submitted a charge sheet
against the respondent. On the basis of the aforesaid charge sheet,
charges were framed against the accused-respondent. The prosecution
in order to establish the guilt of the accused examined several
witnesses and exhibited a number of documents including scientific
reports. Thereafter, the accused was examined under Section 313
Cr.P.C. for the purpose of enabling him to explain the circumstances
existing against him. After hearing arguments advanced by the
parties, the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddalore by its judgment
dated 11.03.1998 convicted the accused. Principal Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore found that there are enough circumstantial evidence and
motive on the part of the accused for committing such a crime and
held the accused/respondent guilty under Sections 302, 201, 364 and
342 IPC and convicted and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for
life under sections 302 and 364 IPC, rigorous imprisonment for one
year under Section 342 IPC, and rigorous imprisonment for seven
years and to pay a fine of rupees one lakh and in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for twenty one months under Section 201 IPC.
It was also ordered that the sentences would run consecutively.
8.Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction passed
by the trial Court, the respondent herein preferred an appeal before
the High Court. The High Court entertained the said appeal and
heard the counsel appearing for the parties. On conclusion of the
6
arguments, the High Court held that the prosecution has failed to
prove the guilt of the accused and accordingly the High Court
acquitted the respondent of all the charges vide its judgment and
order dated 05.10.2001 by reversing and setting aside the order of
conviction passed against the respondent under Sections 302, 201,
364 and 342 IPC.
9.We may now at this stage refer to the arguments of the counsel of
the parties in order to understand the scope and ambit of the appeal
and also to appreciate the contentions so as to enable us to arrive
at a well-considered findings and conclusions.
10.Mr. S. Thananjayan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
State emphatically argued before us that the decision of the High
Court of acquitting the accused person is totally erroneous and
suffers from serious infirmities. He also submitted that the
prosecution has proved the case to the hilt and that a compete and
well-connected chain of circumstantial evidences have been
established to prove the guilt of the accused. He also submitted
that the prosecution has established the case against the accused
beyond reasonable doubt. It was also submitted that the motive of
the accused to cause bodily injury to the deceased has also been
proved and that the evidence on record clearly establish that on
06.11.1996 the deceased was in the company of the accused and that
thereafter, deceased could not be found and that the confessional
7
statement of the accused leading to the discovery of head of the
deceased in the canal is a clinching circumstance to connect the
accused with the offence. He also contended and relied upon the fact
that the accused absconded from the hostel for several days and
thereafter surrendered before the Court which would serve as an
additional link in the chain of circumstances to prove the charges
levelled against him. He also submitted that the High Court was not
justified in setting aside the order of conviction, for what the
High Court had found proved was only a plausible or possible view
and version, which did not find favour with the trial Court. He
also submitted that the High Court was not justified in disbelieving
the recording of confession merely because of the omission to
mention the same in the case diary. It was also submitted that the
High Court was not justified in disbelieving the recovery merely
because there was contradiction with regard to timing of recovery.
He further submitted that the High Court erroneously disbelieved the
case of the prosecution that the torso could be carried in MO-13
Suit Case which is 21 inches as according to Exhibit P52 mahazar
the length of MO-13 is 21 inches and diameter is 24 inches and
therefore, the torso could not have been parceled in the suit case
MO-13. He also took us through the evidence on record in support of
his contention that the High Court committed an error in acquitting
the respondent solely on the ground that it is hazardous to convict
the accused on the basis of the evidence placed by the prosecution.
8
He submitted that in the present case all the witnesses produced are
of respectable status and are independent witnesses and they do not
have any axe to grind against the accused and, therefore, the High
Court committed an error in disbelieving the evidence on record.
11.On the other hand, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused very painstakingly
drew our attention to various aspects of the case, which according
to him demolish the very substratum of the prosecution case. He also
heavily relied upon the fact, by making submission, that there are
no eye-witnesses and no direct evidence regarding commission of the
crime by the respondent. He submitted that there are no materials
to show that the respondent took the deceased to room No. 319 [room
of the accused] and killed him there. He further submitted that as
no blood was recovered from the room No. 319 and that the two
roommates of the respondent, viz., Raja Chidambaram [PW-37] & Shagir
Thabris [PW-38] have not stated that they smelled any blood or saw
any blood stains in the room, it definitely belies prosecution case
that murder was committed in the said room of the hostel. Further
submission was that PWs 37 & 38 admitted that the three knives
[i.e., MOSs 9 to 11] were used for cutting fruits and that PW 37
further admitted that during the time of interrogation police
neither showed the articles seized from the room of accused nor
asked him to identify the said articles. The counsel for the
respondent further submitted that there is no evidence to prove that
9
the accused proceeded to Madras on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. from
Chidambaram railway station, albeit he submitted that accused took
train at Chidambaram on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. bound for
Tiruchirapalli to go to his native place, Karur and returned from
Karur on 8th morning. Counsel stated that accused took his briefcase
[MO-13] along with him and that MO-14 belongs to Raja Chidambaram
[PW-37] and after meeting his parents on 7.11.96, the accused
returned to Chidambaram hostel on the morning of 8.11.96 and he was
in the hostel from 9-11.11.96. On the night of 10.11.96 his mother
and his cousin brother had arrived at Chidambaram and stayed in
Saradha Ram Hotel and they left on 11.11.96 Noon. Counsel for the
respondent further submitted that the non-examination of the Vice-
Chancellor and the Dean of the university though they have been
cited in the charge sheet as witnesses is fatal to the prosecution
case. Next submission was that the chain of events to prove the
guilt of the accused has many loopholes in it. Learned senior
counsel for the respondent also submitted that the High Court has
rightly acquitted the accused as circumstances alleged by the
prosecution have not been proved. It was also his submission that
this being an appeal against acquittal, it is to be ascertained very
carefully whether the view taken by the High Court is a plausible or
possible view and that if the order of acquittal is one of the
possible view, the same deserves deference rather than interference
by the appellate court. He also submitted that the trial court was
10
wrong in holding the respondent guilty for evidence adduced by the
prosecution to prove that the deceased was last seen with the
accused replete with inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies.
LEGAL POSITION:-
APPEAL AGAINST ACQUITTAL
12.Before we enter into the merit of the case, we are required to
deal with the contention of the counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent regarding the scope and ambit of an APPEAL AGAINST
ACQUITTAL. Various decisions of this Court have dealt with the
issue very extensively. Therefore, it would be suffice, if we
extract few decisions of this Court laying down the law in this
regard.
13.In the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Sajivan & Ors. reported at
(2010) 1 SCC 529, one of us (Bhandari, J.) detailed the law in this
regard as follows: –
“46. …………….. This Court would ordinarily be
slow in interfering in order of acquittal. The scope of
the powers of the appellate court in an appeal is well
settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal
against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against
conviction.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka this Court held: (SCC
p. 432, para 42)
11
“(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which
the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of
such power and an appellate court on the evidence
before it may reach its own conclusion, both on
questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, `substantial and
compelling reasons’, `good and sufficient grounds’,
`very strong circumstances’, `distorted
conclusions’, `glaring mistakes’, etc. are not
intended to curtail extensive powers of an appellate
court in an appeal against acquittal. Such
phraseologies are more in the nature of `flourishes
of language’ to emphasise the reluctance of an
appellate court to interfere with acquittal than to
curtail the power of the court to review the
evidence and to come to its own conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in mind
that in case of acquittal, there is double
presumption in favour of the accused. Firstly, the
presumption of innocence is available to him under
the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence
that every person shall be presumed to be innocent
unless he is proved guilty by a competent court of
law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is
further reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by
the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible on
the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate
court should not disturb the finding of acquittal
recorded by the trial court.”
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In Ghurey Lal v. State of U.P., one of us (Bhandari, J.)
summarised the legal position as follows in paras 69 and
70: (SCC p. 477)
“69. The following principles emerge from the cases
above:
12
1. The appellate court may review the evidence
in appeals against acquittal under Sections 378
and 386 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.
Its power of reviewing evidence is wide and the
appellate court can reappreciate the entire
evidence on record. It can review the trial
court’s conclusion with respect to both facts
and law.
2. The accused is presumed innocent until
proven guilty. The accused possessed this
presumption when he was before the trial court.
The trial court’s acquittal bolsters the
presumption that he is innocent.
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must
be given to the trial court’s decision. This is
especially true when a witness’ credibility is
at issue. It is not enough for the High Court
to take a different view of the evidence. There
must also be substantial and compelling reasons
for holding that the trial court was wrong.
In a recently delivered judgment of this Court in State
of U.P. v. Banne, one of us (Bhandari, J.) summarised the
entire legal position and observed that this Court would
be justified in interfering in the judgment of the High
Court in the following circumstances which are
illustrative and not exhaustive: (SCC p. 286, para 28)
“(i) The High Court’s decision is based on totally
erroneous view of law by ignoring the settled legal
position;
(ii) The High Court’s conclusions are contrary to
evidence and documents on record;
(iii) The entire approach of the High Court in
dealing with the evidence was patently illegal
leading to grave miscarriage of justice;
(iv) The High Court’s judgment is manifestly unjust
and unreasonable based on erroneous law and facts on
the record of the case;
(v) This Court must always give proper weight and
consideration to the findings of the High Court;
13
(vi) This Court would be extremely reluctant in
interfering with a case when both the Sessions Court
and the High Court have recorded an order of
acquittal.”
This Court would be justified in interfering with the
judgment of acquittal of the High Court only when there
are very substantial and compelling reasons to discard
the High Court decision. When we apply the test laid down
by this Court repeatedly in a large number of cases, the
irresistible conclusion is that the High Court in the
impugned judgment has not correctly followed the legal
position.”
14.In another decision of this Court in the case of Sannaia Subba Rao
& Ors. Vs. State of A.P. reported at 2008 (17) SCC 225, one of us,
has referred to and quoted with approval the general principles
while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, wherein, it was
clearly mentioned that; the appellate court has full power to
review, relook and re-appreciate the entire evidence based on which
the order of acquittal is founded; further it was also accepted that
the Code of Criminal Procedure puts no limitation or restriction on
the appellate court to reach its own conclusion based on the
evidence before it.
15.In the case of Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT
of Delhi) reported at (2010) 6 SCC 1 this court held as follows: –
“27. The following principles have to be kept in mind by
the appellate court while dealing with appeals,
particularly against an order of acquittal:
(i) There is no limitation on the part of the appellate
court to review the evidence upon which the order of
acquittal is founded.
14
(ii) The appellate court in an appeal against acquittal
can review the entire evidence and come to its own
conclusions.
(iii) The appellate court can also review the trial
court’s conclusion with respect to both facts and law.
(iv) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the
State, it is the duty of the appellate court to marshal
the entire evidence on record and by giving cogent and
adequate reasons set aside the judgment of acquittal.
(v) An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only
when there are “compelling and substantial reasons” for
doing so. If the order is “clearly unreasonable”, it is a
compelling reason for interference.
(vi) While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the
appellate court is first required to seek an answer to
the question whether findings of the trial court are
palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably
unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above
question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to
be disturbed. Conversely, if the appellate court holds,
for reasons to be recorded, that the order of acquittal
cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above
infirmities, it can reappraise the evidence to arrive at
its own conclusion.
(vii) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or
misread the material evidence or has ignored material
documents like dying declaration/report of ballistic
experts, etc. the appellate court is competent to reverse
the decision of the trial court depending on the
materials placed.”
16.Therefore, one of the settled position of law as to how the Court
should deal with an appeal against acquittal is that, while dealing
with such an appeal, the appellate Court has no restriction to
review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of
acquittal is founded. On such review, the appellate Court would
consider the manner in which the evidence was dealt with by the
15
lower Court. At the same time, if the lower Court’s decision is
based on erroneous views and against the settled position of law,
then such an order of acquittal should be set aside.
17.Another settled position is that, if the trial Court has ignored
material and relevant facts or misread such evidence or has ignored
scientific documents, then in such a scenario the appellate court is
competent to reverse the decision of the trial court.
18.Therefore keeping in mind the aforesaid broad principles of the
settled position of law, we would proceed to analyse the evidence
that is adduced and come to the conclusion whether the decision of
the High Court should be upheld or reversed.
CASE ON CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
19.The principle for basing a conviction on the edifice of
circumstantial evidence has also been indicated in a number of
decisions of this Court and the law is well-settled that each and
every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by
reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must
form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion
that could be drawn is the guilt of the accused and that no other
hypothesis against the guilt is possible. This Court has clearly
sounded a note of caution that in a case depending largely upon
16
circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or
suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The Court must satisfy
itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been
established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such
as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the
accused. It has also been indicated that when the important link
goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other
circumstances cannot in any manner, establish the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It has been held that the
Court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the
suspicion to take the place of legal proof. It has been indicated by
this Court that there is a long mental distance between ‘may be
true’ and ‘must be true’ and the same divides conjectures from sure
conclusions.
20.This Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Balak & Anr.,
reported at (2008) 15 SCC 551 had dealt with the whole law relating
to circumstantial evidence in the following terms: –
“11. It has been consistently laid down by this Court
that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial
evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only
when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are
found to be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused or the guilt of any other person. (See Hukam
Singh v. State of Rajasthan, Eradu v. State of Hyderabad,
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, State of U.P. v.
Sukhbasi, Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab and Ashok
Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.) The circumstances from
which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is
drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have
to be shown to be closely connected with the principal
17
fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In
Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab it was laid down that where
the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from
circumstances the cumulative effect of the circumstances
must be such as to negative the innocence of the accused
and bring home the offences beyond any reasonable doubt.
We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court
in C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. wherein it has been
observed thus: (SCC pp. 206-07, para 21)
`21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
settled law is that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and
such circumstances must be conclusive in nature.
Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and
there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence.
Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and
totally inconsistent with his innocence.’
11. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. it was laid
down that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence,
such evidence must satisfy the following tests: (SCC
pp. 710-11, para 10)
`(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt
is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly
established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency
unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a
chain so complete that there is no escape from the
conclusion that within all human probability the crime
was committed by the accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation
of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the
accused and such evidence should not only be consistent
with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent
with his innocence.’
`10. … It is well to remember that in cases where the
evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances
from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should
in the first instance be fully established, and all the
18
facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the
circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency and they should be such as to exclude every
hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other
words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must
be such as to show that within all human probability the
act must have been done by the accused.’
16. A reference may be made to a later decision in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra. Therein, while
dealing with circumstantial evidence, it has been held
that the onus was on the prosecution to prove that the
chain is complete and the infirmity of lacuna in
prosecution cannot be cured by false defence or plea. The
conditions precedent in the words of this Court, before
conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence,
must be fully established. They are: (SCC p. 185, para
153)
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established. The
circumstances concerned `must’ or `should’ and not `may
be’ established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is
to say, they should not be explainable on any other
hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
the one to be proved; and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not
to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
show that in all human probability the act must have been
done by the accused.”
These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v.
Raja Ram, at SCC pp. 187-90, paras 9-16 and State of
Haryana v. Jagbir Singh.”
21.In the light of the above principle we proceed to ascertain
whether the prosecution has been able to establish a chain of
19
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-John David.
Thereafter PW-3 made enquiries on the incident and submitted a
report about the incident of ragging to the higher officials which
20
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 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], 1st 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
21
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 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 they
were returning from the college at about 12.45 p.m. on 06.11.1996
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
22
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. 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],
23
Senthilkumar [PW-40], 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 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. he saw the accused sleeping in the varanda of Room No.
319 with two suitcases 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 kept a suitcase, i.e.,
MO-14 and went to sleep in the room of PW-41 along with MO-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 MO-13 from the room at about 12.30 p.m. This statement of
PW-40 was also supported by the statement of 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
24
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 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.
25
26.In the present case, as stated supra, PW-1, father of 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 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 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 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 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
26
confessional statement could not have been voluntarily given by the
accused without referring to 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 the discovery of
object is admissible.
28.We may at this 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
27
thrown the head of the deceased after putting it in a zip bag and
since the water level 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 MO-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 court, 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 [MO-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
28
[PW-77]. PW-66 in his evidence has stated that the deceased 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 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 he had given silver
filling on the right upper first molar of the deceased and that he
had 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 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
29
of PWs 65 & 66 it becomes amply 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 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. 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 bag
with red letters [marked as MO-16] and thereafter Crime No. 1544 of
1996 case was registered and investigation was started by 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 and the deceased would appear to
have died of decapitation and he further stated that the respective
surface of the fifth cervical vertebra of the head are reciprocally
fitting into the corresponding surface of the sixth cervical
vertebra of the torso and this articulation was exact in nature and
hence he opined that the head and torso belonged to one and the same
person.
30
33.The other limbs of the deceased were recovered by Gopalan [PW-44],
Sub-Inspector in Marakkanam Police Station on 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
Madras and threw the limbs somewhere (while transit to Madras) and
also that accused carried the parcel of torso to Madras and dropped
it in the bus No. 21G at Tambaram but, there is only circumstantial
evidence.
35.One of the clinching evidence 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 MO-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 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 driver, has
31
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 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 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, 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 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 who could have caused the
concealment of torso and limbs because it was the accused who had
32
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 of deceased-Navarasu.
37.Therefore, if we look at the case, we find that the 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 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 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 limbs
recovered were of the deceased only.
38.It is well-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
33
the circumstances would not be fatal for the 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 Karnataka v. K. Yarappa Reddy reported in
(1999) 8 SCC 715 this Court has held that; the court must have
predominance and pre-eminence in 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 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.
34
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 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.
……………………….J
[Dalveer Bhandari]
………………………J
[Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]
New Delhi,
April 20, 2011.
35
ITEM NO.1A Court No.11 SECTION IIA
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 384 OF 2002
INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU Appellant (s)
VERSUS
JOHN DAVID Respondent(s)
Date: 20/04/2011 This matter was called on for pronouncement of
judgment today.
For Appellant(s)
Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv.
For Respondent(s)
Ms. V. Mohana,Adv.
Hon’ble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma pronounced the judgment
of the Bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari and
His Lordship.
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.
(DEEPAK MANSUKHANI) (RENU DIWAN)
Court Master Court Master
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)
36
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp
7:51 முப இல் ஏப்ரல் 28, 2011 |
John David to file revision petition: lawyer
Express News Service , The New Indian Express
Posted on Apr 26, 2011 at 11:41pm IST
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/john-david-to-file-revision-petition-lawyer/150462-60-118.html
TIRUCHY/CHENNAI: John David, who conviction in the sensational Navarasu ragging case was upheld by the Supreme Court recently, is expected to file a revision petition, according to his advocate A Padmanaban.
In an exclusive interview with Express, Padmanaban claimed that there was no direct evidence to establish the claim that his client took Navarasu to his room on the fateful day, knocked him unconscious, severed his limbs and disposed them off at various places.
The prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, he argued. He agreed that David was found along with Navarasu on November 6, 1996 at 1 pm near the Dean’s office, but beyond that there is no proof to link him to the murder.
According to Padmanaban, the crucial point is that the prosecution claims that the murder took place at 3 pm on November 6, 1996.
The then Governor of Tamil Nadu, Chancellor of the University wrote a letter to the Vice-Chancellor of Annamalai University requesting information about Navarasu.
The V-C of Annamalai University had sent the report stating that the father of the deceased (Navarasu) was informed around 10 pm about the matter.
He was informed that Navarasu had been seen by one of his classmates in the mess at breakfast.; later by the mess servant at lunch, and subsequently by the Warden and Deputy Warden in the evening, all on November 7, 1996.
It is thus seen that the Vice-Chancellor of Annamalai University had gathered certain materials to show that the deceased was seen alive on November 7, 1996.
The prosecution had not examined the Vice-Chancellor even though he was cited as a witness in the charge sheet. But� the Trial Court had accepted the evidence of the postmortem doctor that the offence of murder could have taken place either on 6 or 7th November.
Padmanaban argues that the murder could not have taken place in Room No 319 for the following reasons: Severing of head while Navarasu was alive, would have caused profuse bleeding where blood would have sprouted all over the place..
Later in the day, John David’s roommates too did not find anything untoward or smelling foul.
Even when police along with forensic experts examined the room they found no evidence of blood in the room.
The advocate asserted the police threatened John David and forced him to confess to the crime.
According to him, the circumstantial evidence in the case is too feeble to make out a case against John David.
8:44 முப இல் ஏப்ரல் 28, 2011 |
Satanic past of church-going John David haunts neighbours
Karthikeyan Hemalatha, TNN, Apr 25, 2011, 02.28am IST
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-04-25/chennai/29471143_1_anti-ragging-act-raghavan-committee-john-david
CHENNAI: Residents of III Main Road in Bhakthavatchalam Nagar, Adyar are shocked that John Marimuthu, who lived in their neighbourhood, is actually John David, convicted for murdering his mate Navaarasu at Raja Annamalai Medical University in 1996. John David’s family moved into the apartment complex on III Main Road in 2001, according to some residents.
On Sunday, a resident of the apartment complex that John Marimuthu stayed in preferred to stay indoors after she read the newspaper. “No comments,” she said shutting the door.
Ads by Google
home security camera
FLIR – thermal imaging cameras for security & border surveillance
Many others were surprised that the “quiet man” they saw every day was a murderer. “We’ve been neighbours for around ten years. Never once did I imagine he could be a brutal murderer,” said Raju, a neighbour. Asked if there was a fear in the neighbourhood now, he said, “He is a young educated man who committed a horrendous mistake on impulse. I don’t there is anything to fear. I would have been scared if he was professional killer.”
A few remenbered him as one who didn’t have much of a life apart from work and home. “I never saw him come home with friends or relatives. Every Sunday he went to church with his mother. Once in a while, I would see him smoking in a tea stall two km away,” said Manohar, a cab driver.
John David’s mother Esther was the president of the residents welfare association of the apartment comples. “Any communication that she had to send to other residents was sent through me. She never socialized much,” said the watchman at the complex.
John’s lawyer Padmanabhan, however, says his client is innocent. “All the evidence used in court is circumstantial. There is no direct evidence to prove he is the murderer. His confession came 12 hours after being in police custody,” he said.
The case has been a stepping stone for anti-ragging laws in operation now. Tamil Nadu was one of the first to bring out an anti-ragging act. ‘The Prohibition of Ragging Act’ was passed the same year as Naavarasu’s murder, 1996.
In May 2007, the Raghavan Committee suggested to the Supreme Court to include ragging as a separate section in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Based on this recommendation, the Supreme Court passed the Anti-Ragging Act making all educational institutions obligatory to file a F.I.R. if any incident of ragging is reported.
10:47 முப இல் ஏப்ரல் 29, 2011 |
[…] […]
4:34 முப இல் ஓகஸ்ட் 11, 2011 |
Satan looks through his eyes.
The evil power is there in his eyes.
Better to hang him so that the devil is sent back to hell.