Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of Sadayappan @ Ganesan (appellant) against his conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC for the murder of Selvam @ Thangaraj. The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence. The deceased and the accused were neighbouring landowners. Around 15 years before the incident, the deceased had paid Rs. 30,000 to co-accused A1 for land but the sale deed was never registered. The appellant supported A1 in delaying registration, creating enmity. On May 27, 2008, at 11 p.m., both accused took the deceased to the forest for hunting. When the deceased did not return, his wife (PW1) sent relatives (PW2, PW3) to search, who found his dead body with gunshot injuries. PW1 lodged a complaint. The accused surrendered before the Village Administrative Officer (VAO) and confessed. The VAO produced them with confessional statements, leading to recovery of a single barrel muzzle loading gun (MO1) and other items. The trial court convicted both accused, and the High Court upheld the conviction. The appellant argued that the witnesses were interested relatives and the chain of circumstances was incomplete. The Supreme Court held that related witnesses are not automatically interested; their testimony was reliable and corroborated. The motive was established by the land dispute. The last seen evidence by PW1, prompt complaint, and forensic evidence linking the recovered gun to the injuries proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. The extra-judicial confession was admissible despite the VAO's death. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - Motive - The prosecution established motive due to land dispute and last seen evidence by PW1, wife of deceased, that accused took deceased away on the night of incident. The chain of circumstances was complete and proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt (Paras 8-17). B) Evidence Law - Related Witness - Credibility - Witnesses related to deceased are not automatically 'interested' witnesses. Their testimony cannot be discarded unless they have a direct interest in the outcome. In this case, PWs 1,2,3,4,6 were related but not interested, and their evidence withstood cross-examination (Paras 11-14). C) Criminal Law - Extra-Judicial Confession - Admissibility - Extra-judicial confession recorded by Village Administrative Officer (VAO) was admissible even though VAO died before trial, as Village Assistant (PW11) deposed about its recording and it was sent to police with covering letter (Para 16). D) Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC - Murder - Common Intention - Section 34 IPC - The appellant and co-accused shared common intention to murder deceased due to prior enmity over land. The gun (MO1) recovered at appellant's instance and forensic evidence linked it to injuries, proving common intention (Paras 8, 15, 17).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
Law Points
- Circumstantial evidence
- last seen theory
- motive
- related witness credibility
- extra-judicial confession
- common intention
