Brief Facts
- The accused, along with others, was involved in killing the taxi driver through a conspiracy by taking him to an isolated place, killing him and stealing car and other belongings of deceased and burying his dead body. When the deceased could not be contacted a complaint was lodged at the police station, however, the deceased could not be traced during the investigation and the police filed the closure report as “untraceable” and the closure report was also accepted by the Magistrate Court. Thereafter, the Appellant Accused (A-1) wrote a letter to PW-22 on 29.12.2007 through which A-1 purportedly confessed the offence committed by him along with other accused persons. Based on the letter of A-1 fresh investigation begun. During such investigation A-1 disclosed the place where the body of the deceased was burred and later even the car driven by the deceased was recovered. The accused person were convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under section 302 and 201 IPC and the conviction was upheld by the High Court.
- It was the case of accused that the accused was convicted on confessional statement and therefore, in case of circumstantial evidence until the chain of events were proved and establish, he could not have been convicted on the basis of confessional statement.
Issues
- Whether the accused could be convicted on the basis of the confessional statement made by him in the form of letter dated 29.12.2007?
- Whether the recovery of the deceased’s body and the car parts in furtherance of the disclosure statement of the Accused A-1, recorded under section 27 of the Evidence Act, can be considered as admissible and credible?
- Whether the death of the deceased would be deemed homicidal as in the post-mortem report the cause of death was unascertainable?
Held
- The Apex Court rejected the appeal and the upheld the conviction of the Appellant as recovery of dead body and the stolen car was made in furtherance of his disclosure statement and such places were in exclusive knowledge of the Appellant.
- It is a case of recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused from the place which was disclosed by the accused who can be said to be in exclusive knowledge of the place where the dead body was buried. That thereafter, the superimposition test was conducted and the DNA examination was conducted on the bones and the skull and it was proved that the dead body was that of the deceased. This is the first strong circumstance against the appellant A-1 which has led to his conviction. Second strong circumstance against the appellant-Accused 1 is that there is a recovery of car driven by the deceased from the place and the person disclosed by appellant-Accused 1. The prosecution has successfully proved the same by examining PW 16, a person to whom the stolen car was sold by the appellant-Accused 1.
- It is required to be noted that as the dead body was buried and was found after numbers of months, it may not be possible for the prosecution to prove that the death was a homicidal death. However, at the same time and as rightly observed by the High Court, by other circumstances the prosecution has established and proved that the deceased was killed after his car was stolen/taken away by the appellant.
Relevant Para No.
- 6.2, 6.5