“The present case is a classic illustration of how humans tend to surpass all limits of sound human behavior and even go to the extent of crushing human lives in the pursuance of their greed. A disputed piece of land, contesting claims over the same, prolonged litigation, unsuccessful attempts to favourably turn the pending litigations, a reputed doctor of Chennai, a land-grabbing mafia, few advocates, few henchmen and a broad day-light murder in Chennai”
The Supreme Court has asserted that an appellate court reversing a conviction cannot substitute a legally possible view taken by the trial court merely because another view is available, and interference is justified only where the trial court’s findings are perverse, illegal, impossible, or wholly unsustainable. The Court held that contradictions between the statement of an approver made under Section 161 CrPC while he was an accused and his later testimony after pardon must be assessed contextually, and such contradictions do not by themselves destroy his credibility if there is adequate independent corroboration.
The Apex Court clarified that a non-confessional statement of an accused recorded during investigation may qualify as a statement under Section 161 CrPC and may be used for contradiction if the accused later enters the witness box. On electronic evidence, the Court held that call detail records must be proved through a proper Section 65-B certificate by a competent person in control of the system generating the record, and that defective chain of custody can render CCTV-based evidence unreliable.
Further, the Court held that crime-scene re-enactment is not, in every case, barred by Article 20(3); the decisive test is whether the act compels disclosure of personal knowledge or merely facilitates examination of physical attributes. Finally, the Court reaffirmed that even where certain corroborative electronic evidence fails, conviction can still be sustained if the remaining direct and circumstantial evidence forms a complete and reliable chain establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed that the High Court had committed a grave error in re-appreciating the evidence on an artificial and subjective standard, instead of demonstrating perversity, illegality, or impossibility in the Trial Court’s view. The Bench found that the direct testimony of PW2 and PW3 as eye-witnesses was materially consistent and credible, and that the evidence of PW4, PW5, PW12 and PW53 sufficiently established the conspiracy when read together with the surrounding circumstances.
The Bench also observed that contradictions and omissions in the testimony of an approver must be assessed in light of the fact that his earlier statement was made while he was an accused, whereas his later disclosure was made after grant of pardon and on oath; therefore, such contradictions were not necessarily fatal. At the same time, the Bench agreed with the High Court that the call detail records had not been duly proved because the nodal officers of the telecom companies were not examined, and that the CCTV footage and gait analysis report could not safely be relied upon due to serious defects in chain of custody and mishandling of the electronic record.
However, the Bench held that the failure of those pieces of corroborative evidence did not damage the prosecution case because there was ample direct and circumstantial evidence otherwise proving guilt. The Bench further observed that re-enactment of a crime scene does not per se amount to testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) if it merely concerns physical attributes and is not a disclosure of personal knowledge; however, in the present case, the gait evidence still failed on evidentiary reliability.
The Bench ultimately restored the Trial Court’s conviction, substituted life imprisonment in view of the State not pressing for capital punishment, and granted Accused 1 and Accused 2 time to seek pardon under Article 161 of the Constitution in light of their advanced age and limited role.
Briefly, the case arose from the murder of Dr. Subbiah, a doctor at Billroth Hospital, Chennai, who was attacked on Sep 14, 2013 by three assailants outside the hospital and later died from the injuries sustained. The prosecution case was that the murder was the result of a criminal conspiracy arising out of a prolonged land dispute concerning a two-acre property in Anjugramam Village, Kanyakumari District, between the deceased and the family of Accused 1. According to the prosecution, multiple conspiracy meetings took place in July 2013, involving Accused 1 to Accused 9 and PW12 (who later became an approver), in which it was decided that the deceased would be eliminated so that the accused could enjoy or dispose of the disputed property without hindrance.
The prosecution relied on direct evidence of eye-witnesses, evidence of conspiracy witnesses, the testimony of the approver, evidence relating to money transfers allegedly made to facilitate the crime, recovery of incriminating articles, and electronic evidence including CCTV footage, gait analysis, and call detail records. The Trial Court convicted the accused and imposed death sentences on several of them, but the High Court reversed the conviction and acquitted all accused.
Appearances:
Kartik Seth, Adv., Shilpa Saini, Adv., Ratakshi Sarvaria, Adv., K.M. Abish, Adv., Shaesta Irshad, Adv., Ragib, Adv., M/s Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR, Siddharth Luthra, Sr. Adv., M.F. Philip, Adv., Purnima Krishna, AOR, Kartikeya Dang, Adv., Aadarsh Joshi, Adv., Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv., Togin M. Babichen, Adv., Muskan Anand, Adv., for Appellants
M.F. Philip, Adv., Purnima Krishna, AOR, Karamveer Singh Yadav, Adv., Togin M. Babichen, Adv., Dr. Yug Mohit Chaudhary, Adv., Siddhartha, Adv., Mr. S. Prabu Ramasubramanian, Adv., Bharathimohan M., Adv., V. Swetha, Adv., Vairawan A.S, AOR, Navneet Dugar, AOR, Prashant Padmanabhan, AOR, R. Basant, Sr. Adv., N. Sai Vinod, AOR, Kanu Garg, Adv., Raunak Arora, Adv., Kavinesh Rn, Adv., Shubham Chopra, Adv., M Sathyanarayanan, Sr. Adv., Anindita Mitra, AOR, Vishal Sinha, Adv., Lakshman Raja T, Adv., Payoshi Roy, Adv., Kaushal Kishore, Adv., Amit Pratap Shaunak, Adv., Achintya Tiwari, Adv., Priyanshu Maheshwari, Adv., Shivangi Chaturvedi, Adv., M. Srinivasan, Adv., D. Narayana Kumar, Adv., C. Solomon, AOR, Shri Singh, Adv., Arshiya Ghose, Adv., Rudrali Patil, Adv., Arunima M, Adv., Varuni Aggarwal, Adv., S. Parthasarathi, AOR, Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv., Shivani Vij, AOR, Shrutanjaya Bhardwaj, Adv., Siddhi Nagwekar, Adv., Yash Tayal, Adv., Nizam Pasha, Adv., Lzafeer Ahmad B. F., AOR, Anshika Das, Adv., Arif Ali, Adv., Sidharth Kaushik, Adv., for Respondents
