Summary
A taxi driver disappeared in 2006, and the case was closed as undetected. It was reopened after a letter attributed to the appellant, a fellow driver, reached the police. The appellant then led the police to the spot where the body was buried, and DNA and superimposition tests identified it. On his disclosure the car was recovered from a buyer, and its engine and gearbox from another person. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The conviction did not rest on the letter, which the High Court had not relied on. It rested on these recoveries, made from places within his exclusive knowledge. That an unascertainable cause of death was not fatal where the body was found months after burial.
Issues
- Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder and causing disappearance of evidence, resting on circumstantial evidence, was sustainable where the post-mortem could not ascertain the cause of death and the letter of confession was not relied upon.
Provisions considered
- Sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The appellant's conviction and sentence for murder of the taxi driver and disappearance of evidence were upheld on the basis of the proved circumstances. (¶¶ 6, 6.4, 7)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings of guilt on strong circumstances did not call for interference. (¶¶ 6.4, 7.1)
Held
- The appellant was not convicted on a confession: the letter addressed to PW-22, secondary evidence and not proved, was given little weight by the High Court, though it prompted reopening of the case closed as undetected. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2)
- The body was exhumed from a place disclosed by the appellant, within his exclusive knowledge, and identified as the deceased's by superimposition and DNA tests; the car was recovered from PW-16, to whom the appellant had sold it; and the engine and gear box were recovered from PW-17 on his disclosure, proved by the investigating officer despite PW-17 turning hostile. These strong circumstances sustain the conviction. (¶¶ 6.2, 6.3, 6.4)
- Since the body was found months after burial, failure to establish the cause of death in the post-mortem was not fatal where the other circumstances proved that the deceased was killed after the appellant took his car. (¶ 6.5)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 466 of 2017 against the Madras High Court judgment dated 22.07.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 171 of 2015 dismissed, and the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC confirmed.