Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Palanisamy Alias Selvan ., Supreme Court Of India, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The respondent had been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment. The conviction was based solely on two pieces of circumstantial evidence: (1) testimony from PWs 1 and 2 that they had last seen the respondent with the deceased around 11 p.m. on the night of the incident, and (2) an alleged extra-judicial confession made by the respondent before PW 3, the former village panchayat president. On appeal, a Division Bench of the Madras High Court disbelieved both circumstances and acquitted the respondent. The State of Tamil Nadu appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s acquittal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the High Court erred in rejecting the “last seen together” testimony of PWs 1 and 2 as unreliable.

Whether the High Court erred in disbelieving the alleged extra-judicial confession testified to by PW 3.

Consequently, whether the acquittal of the respondent should be set aside and the trial court’s conviction restored.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant State’s Arguments

The High Court should not have discarded the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 regarding the last-seen circumstance.

The High Court wrongly disbelieved PW 3’s account of the respondent’s extra-judicial confession.

Respondent’s Arguments

Supported the High Court’s evaluation of the evidence, asserting that both the last-seen testimony and the alleged confession were unreliable.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court’s assessment of the evidence, providing the following key reasons:

Last-seen evidence (PWs 1 and 2): The incident occurred on a dark night; identification was allegedly made only by voice. No evidence showed that the witnesses were sufficiently acquainted with the accused to identify him from brief voice exchanges. The trial court overlooked this weakness, whereas the High Court correctly found such identification “an impossibility.”

Extra-judicial confession (PW 3): The High Court meticulously examined PW 3’s testimony and found significant inconsistencies and suspicious conduct. PW 3, a former panchayat president familiar with legal procedures, neither recorded the confession nor immediately produced the accused before police. His unexplained delay in informing the police further undermined credibility. The Supreme Court saw no infirmity in the High Court’s reasons for discarding this evidence.

Having found both circumstantial links unreliable, the Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, thereby justifying the High Court’s acquittal.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL DISMISSED. The acquittal of the respondent recorded by the Madras High Court stands affirmed.

Implications: The respondent remains acquitted and is relieved of the life sentence. The decision turns on factual appraisal of evidence and does not create new legal precedent beyond reaffirming standards for evaluating circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions.

Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Palanisamy Alias Selvan .

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.— Heard.

2. The State of Tamil Nadu questions the correctness of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of the respondent. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Erode had found the respondent guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short “IPC”) and convicted him accordingly and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

3. The case at hand rests on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance which was highlighted by the prosecution was that PWs 1 and 2 allegedly saw the deceased in the company of the accused around 11 o'clock in the night. The second was an alleged extra-judicial confession before PW 3, the village head. Though the trial court placed reliance on these factors to find the accused guilty, the High Court found the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to be unreliable so far as the claim to have seen the accused and the deceased together around 11 o'clock in the night. Similarly, the High Court found that the so-called extra-judicial confession has not been established by PW 3.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant State submitted that the High Court should not have discarded the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 so far as the last seen aspect is concerned. Similarly, the High Court should not have disbelieved PW 3 about the alleged extra-judicial confession. Learned counsel for the respondent supported the judgment of the High Court.

5. We find that the High Court has analysed the evidence in great detail and we find that the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 is not truthful so far as the identification aspect is concerned. Undisputedly it was a dark night. They claimed to have identified them from their voice. Though such identification in some cases is possible, in the instant case no evidence was adduced to show that the witnesses were closely acquainted with the accused to even identify him from his voice, that too from very short replies, purported to have been given. This fact was lost sight of by the trial court. The High Court found the possibility of identification as claimed by PWs 1 and 2 an impossibility.

6. So far as the purported extra-judicial confession is concerned the High Court found that the same also has not been established through the evidence of PW 3.

7. The reasons given by the High Court to discard the evidence of PW 3 do not suffer from any infirmity. The High Court after analysing the evidence concluded as follows:

“First we analysed the evidence of PW 3 to find out whether the prosecution had established that the accused had given the extra-judicial confession to him. PW 3 would state that the accused appeared before him on 12-6-1991 around 9.00 a.m and confessed. The occurrence was on 5-6-1991 and Nagarajan was found dead in the early morning on 6-6-1991. PW 3 is the former President of the Village Panchayat Board of Kalangapalayam. If really the accused appeared before him and gave the extra-judicial confession, then prudence on his part demands that he should have surrendered the accused at the police station. He being responsible witness and on that day not holding any office, nothing prevented him to reduce into writing the extra-judicial confession given by the accused. But, he would state that he only advised the accused to go and surrender at the police station for which the accused was not willing. Thereafter, he claims to have advised the accused to surrender in court with the help of a lawyer. These two advices as stated above which were given by PW 3 show without any doubt that he is a man who knows what is to be done when an offender appears before him. In spite of the accused appearing before him, he had not chosen to reduce into writing the extra-judicial confession of the accused or produce him at the police station. On the contrary, he would state that on 12-6-1991 in the night he went to the police station and informed the police officer about the extra-judicial confession given by the accused. What PW 3 was doing right from 9.00 a.m on 12-6-1991, at which point of time the accused appeared before him and gave the extra-judicial confession, till late in the night is a suspicious circumstance which makes us to disbelieve his oral evidence.

8. The appeal is dismissed.

Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 2003, decided on October 1, 2008

Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Palanisamy Alias Selvan .

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant State’s Arguments

Respondent’s Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu v. Palanisamy Alias Selvan .

Comments