Title: PERUMAL RAJA @ PERUMAL v STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL OF 2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 863 of 2019
Dated on: 3.1.2024
Corum: HON’BLE JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA, J.
Facts of the case
In the present case Rajini (Victim) was missing for months before his father, Rajaram, returned from France to India on 20.04.2008. Upon his return, Rajaram noticed that the articles in his property at No.13, Chinna Vaikkal street, Puducherry, where Rajini resided, were scattered and his motorcycle, which Rajini used, was also missing. Rajaram was murdered on 21.04.2008. The appellant, Perumal, a close relative of Rajini and Rajaram, wanted to acquire Rajaram’s property at No.13, Chinna Vaikkal street, Puducherry. Rajaram and his son Rajini were hindrances to this acquisition. There were also family disputes relating to another property in Kurumbapet. Based on the disclosure statement made by Perumal on 25.04.2008, decomposed human body parts were recovered from two nylon sack bags and human bones were recovered from a sump tank at the above-mentioned property. A superimposition report by C. Pushparani, Scientific Assistant Grade II, Anthropology Division, Forensic Sciences Department, Chennai, confirmed that the recovered skull and mandible were that of the deceased Rajini. According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death could not be ascertained due to decomposition. However, the bones were identified as belonging to a person between 25-30 years of age, and the death had probably occurred six months before the autopsy. Rajini, who had been missing for about six months, was 30 years old. Rajaram’s motorcycle, keys, insurance papers, and other personal belongings were recovered from Mohan Kumar and a juvenile.
Legal provision
The case deals with the interpretation of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act as the appellant challenged his conviction on the grounds of lack of direct evidence, inconsistency in the medical evidence, non-compliance with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and absence of any independent corroboration. Section 27 of the Evidence Act is a provision that allows the admission of information given by an accused person that leads to the discovery of a fact relevant to the case.
In this case, the prosecution relied on the disclosure statement made by the appellant, Perumal Raja, who confessed to killing Rajini and disposing of his body parts in a sump tank and a canal. The court while referring to several other judgements held that Section 27 is an exception to Sections 25 and 26, which prohibit confessions made to a police officer or while in police custody, unless made in the presence of a magistrate. Section 27 requires that the information given by the accused must distinctly relate to the fact discovered as a consequence of the information, and not to any other fact already known or disclosed. It is based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events, which means that the discovery of a fact in consequence of the information given by the accused lends assurance to the credibility of the information.
It was also held Section 27 does not equate the discovery of a fact with the object produced or found, but includes the place from which the object is produced, the knowledge of the accused as to its existence, and the connection between the object and the offence.
The court observed that Section 27 is vulnerable to abuse by the police, and the courts must be vigilant in ensuring its proper application. However, this does not mean that every invocation of Section 27 must be seen with suspicion and discarded as unreliable. Section 27 applies to joint disclosures, but not to cases where the same information is given by a co-accused who is in custody, as that would amount to repetition and not discovery. It does not mean that the discovery of a fact is conclusive proof of the guilt of the accused, but it is a relevant circumstance that must be considered along with other evidence. The court has to analyse whether the discovery of a fact points to the involvement of the accused in the offence, or is compatible with his innocence.
It was additionally observed that Section 27 also attracts Section 8 of the Evidence Act, which relates to the conduct of the accused about any fact in issue or relevant fact. The conduct of the accused in giving information that leads to the discovery of a fact is relevant as showing his knowledge or mental awareness of the fact.
Court analysis and judgement
In the present case Based on the above observations and the presence of sufficient motive due to the property dispute the court upheld the conviction of the appellant in this case and held that the evidence led by the prosecution was protected under Section 27 of the Evidence Act which acts as an exception to Section 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act. The court also acquitted the co-accused of the appellant, Mohan Kumar due to the non-applicability of Section 27 and Section 8 of the Evidence Act. While the Juvenile was also acquitted under sections 40 and 43 of the Evidence Act.
“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- Namitha Ramesh
