Case Title: Perumal Raja @ Perumal vs State Rep. by the Inspector of Police
Case No: Crl. Appeal @ SLP (Crl.) No. 863 of 2019
Decided on: 3 January, 2024
CORAM: Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Dipankar Datta
Facts of the Case
The appellant, Perumal Raja, was found guilty of killing Rajini and Rajaram. The killings happened on two distinct occasions, spaced about five months apart. Family property disputes, body part disposal, and theft were all mentioned in the prosecution’s case. Witnesses became antagonistic, and the disclosure statement provided by the appellant was a key element in the case. The recovery of body parts, pilfered goods, and expert identification testimony were examples of circumstantial evidence.
Legal Provisions
This case includes: Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Pertains to discoveries made in consequence of information received from the accused. Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Evidence Act – Address confessions, custody, and the admissibility of statements made to police officers. Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Places the burden of proof on the party who asserts a fact. Section 8 of the Evidence Act – Pertains to the conduct of prosecution witnesses.
Relevant case law: Dharam Deo Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh.
Issues
Examination of the Admissibility of the Appellant’s Disclosure Statement. Construal of the Accused’s Revelations vis-à-vis Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Application of Evidence Act Sections 25, 26, and 27 concerning Confessions and Custodial Situations. Scrutiny of Implied Facts and Assessment of the Appellant’s Absence of Legal Justification.
Courts Analysis and Decision
In adjudicating the matter before it, the court accorded due recognition to the probative value of the appellant’s disclosure statement pursuant to Section 27. Notably, the court adopted a pragmatic interpretation of Section 27’s custody requirement, extending its ambit to encompass various manifestations of police surveillance or restraint. Emphasizing the significance of explicating one’s knowledge of the crime scene, the court drew an adverse inference against the appellant for failing to provide a satisfactory explanation. Furthermore, the prosecution’s meticulous establishment of multiple links within the chain of evidence served to fortify their case substantially. Subsequently, the court, in its considered judgment, upheld the conviction of Perumal Raja. The decision rested upon a thorough examination of circumstantial evidence, leading to the dismissal of the appellant’s appeal. In a nuanced approach, the court discerned disparate outcomes for co-accused individuals. The acquittal of certain counterparts was predicated on a discernible dearth of probative evidence against them. Additionally, the exoneration of the juvenile co-defendant found grounding in the specific provisions delineated within the Evidence Act, thus contributing to a comprehensive and equitable resolution of the legal proceedings.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
Click here to read the judgement
