Navarasu Murder Case
Navarasu Murder Case
Versus
JUDGMENT
1.This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 05.10.2001
passed by the High Court of Madras whereby the High Court has
allowed the appeal filed by the respondent herein. The High Court
acquitted the respondent under Sections 302, 364, 201 and 342 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") by reversing the Judgment
and order dated 11.03.1988 rendered by the Court of Principal Sessions
Judge, Cuddalore in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997.
2.The facts of this case are very shocking and very distressing. Murder is
committed of a young boy, the only son of his parents, who at the
relevant time was studying for a medical degree. The manner in which
he was killed and his dead body was disposed of after cutting it into
different pieces was very gruesome and ghastly. The person in the
dock and who was accused of the crime was another senior student
in the same campus.
3.Brief relevant facts leading to the registration of the first
information report and giving rise to the present appeal are being
set out hereunder.
6.The prosecution's version of facts leading to the present case are that on
06.11.1996 at about 2.00 p.m. the accused-John David [first year
senior medical student of Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai Nagar]
took away Navarasu-deceased [first year junior medical student of
Muthiah Medical College, Annamalai Nagar] and subjected him to severe
ragging in Room No. 319 of KRM Hostel of the college and when the
latter did not subjugate himself to the accused, accused caused head
injury to the deceased and when Navarasu-deceased was lying on the ground
unconscious, the accused severed his head and limbs with the help of
stainless steel knives and removed his gold ring, watch and gold
chain and caused his death. After doing such gruesome act and with
the intention of hiding the evidence and also to show his alibi he
put the head and the gold articles of Navarasu-deceased in a zip
bag and threw it into canal water near the hostel and burnt the
bloodstained clothes of the deceased in the open terrace of the
hostel building and took the torso in a suitcase along with the limbs in a
train to Madras and threw the limbs in a river when the train
crossed Cuddalore and put the torso in a bus at Tambaram.
9.We may now at this stage refer to the arguments of the counsel
of the parties in order to understand the scope and ambit of the
appeal and also to appreciate the contentions so as to enable us to
arrive at a well-considered findings and conclusions.
11.On the other hand, Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent-accused very painstakingly drew
our attention to various aspects of the case, which according to him
demolish the very substratum of the prosecution case. He also
heavily relied upon the fact, by making submission, that there are
no eye-witnesses and no direct evidence regarding commission of the
crime by the respondent. He submitted that there are no materials to show
that the respondent took the deceased to room No. 319 [room of the
accused] and killed him there. He further submitted that as no blood was
recovered from the room No. 319 and that the two roommates of the
respondent, viz., Raja Chidambaram [PW-37] & Shagir Thabris [PW-
38] have not stated that they smelled any blood or saw any blood
stains in the room, it definitely belies prosecution case that murder
was committed in the said room of the hostel. Further submission
was that PWs 37 & 38 admitted that the three knives [i.e., MOSs 9 to 11] were
used for cutting fruits and that PW 37 further admitted that during
the time of interrogation police neither showed the articles seized from the
room of accused nor asked him to identify the said articles. The
counsel for the respondent further submitted that there is no
evidence to prove that the accused proceeded to Madras on 06.11.1996 at
9.00 p.m. from Chidambaram railway station, albeit he submitted that accused
took train at Chidambaram on 06.11.1996 at 9.00 p.m. bound for
Tiruchirapalli to go to his native place, Karur and returned from Karur on
8th morning. Counsel stated that accused took his briefcase [MO-13]
along with him and that MO-14 belongs to Raja Chidambaram [PW-37] and
after meeting his parents on 7.11.96, the accused returned to
Chidambaram hostel on the morning of 8.11.96 and he was in the hostel
from 9-11.11.96. On the night of 10.11.96 his mother and his cousin
brother had arrived at Chidambaram and stayed in Saradha Ram Hotel and
they left on 11.11.96 Noon. Counsel for the respondent further
submitted that the non-examination of the Vice-Chancellor and the
Dean of the university though they have been cited in the charge
sheet as witnesses is fatal to the prosecution case. Next submission was
that the chain of events to prove the guilt of the accused has many
loopholes in it. Learned senior counsel for the respondent also submitted
that the High Court has rightly acquitted the accused as circumstances
alleged by the prosecution have not been proved. It was also his
submission that this being an appeal against acquittal, it is to be
ascertained very carefully whether the view taken by the High Court is a
plausible or possible view and that if the order of acquittal is one of the
possible view, the same deserves deference rather than interference by
the appellate court. He also submitted that the trial court was
wrong in holding the respondent guilty for evidence adduced by the
prosecution to prove that the deceased was last seen with the accused
replete with inherent improbabilities and inconsistencies.
13.In the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Sajivan & Ors. reported at (2010) 1 SCC
529, one of us (Bhandari, J.) detailed the law in this regard as follows: -
In Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka this Court held: (SCC p. 432, para 42)
3. Due or proper weight and consideration must be given to the trial court's
decision. This is especially true when a witness' credibility is
at issue. It is not enough for the High Court to take a different view of
the evidence. There must also be substantial and compelling
reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong.
(ii) The High Court's conclusions are contrary to evidence and documents on
record;
(iii) The entire approach of the High Court in dealing with the
evidence was patently illegal leading to grave miscarriage of justice;
14.In another decision of this Court in the case of Sannaia Subba Rao
& Ors. Vs. State of A.P. reported at 2008 (17) SCC 225, one of us, has
referred to and quoted with approval the general principles while
dealing with an appeal against acquittal, wherein, it
was clearly mentioned that; the appellate court has full power to review,
relook and re-appreciate the entire evidence based on which the
order of acquittal is founded; further it was also accepted that the Code of
Criminal Procedure puts no limitation or restriction on the appellate
court to reach its own conclusion based on the evidence before it.
15.In the case of Sidhartha Vashisht alias Manu Sharma v. State (NCT
of Delhi) reported at (2010) 6 SCC 1 this court held as follows: -
(ii) The appellate court in an appeal against acquittal can review the
entire evidence and come to its own conclusions.
(iii) The appellate court can also review the trial court's conclusion
with respect to both facts and law.
(iv) While dealing with the appeal preferred by the State, it is the
duty of the appellate court to marshal the entire evidence on record
and by giving cogent and adequate reasons set aside the
judgment of acquittal.
(vii) When the trial court has ignored the evidence or misread the
material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying
declaration/report of ballistic experts, etc. the appellate court is competent
to reverse the decision of the trial court depending on the materials placed."
20.This Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Ram Balak & Anr.,
reported at (2008) 15 SCC 551 had dealt with the whole law relating to
circumstantial evidence in the following terms: -
11. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. it was laid down that
when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must
satisfy the following tests: (SCC pp. 710-11, para 10)`
(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to
be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to
be proved; and
These aspects were highlighted in State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, at SCC pp.
187-90, paras 9-16 and State of Haryana v. Jagbir Singh."
MOTIVE
22.In the present case, in the chain of events, the first point which
arises for our consideration is the MOTIVE behind the alleged crime
done by the accused-John David. The prosecution has alleged that
accused was in the habit of ragging the junior students and
accustomed in getting his home work done by the junior students and that
is why when the deceased did not subjugate himself to the accused,
the accused gathered ill-will against the deceased and therefore, that
was the motive for which the accused killed him.
24.In the chain of events, the second point which arises for our consideration
is the LAST SEEN evidence of deceased with the accused. For proving the
said fact that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the
deceased, the prosecution has placed reliance upon the evidence of V.
Balaji [PW-19] and Ramaswamy [PW-20], G.M. Nandhakumar [PW-21],
R. Mohamed Shakir [PW-22], R. Saravanan [PW-23] and T. Arun
Kumar [PW-25]. PWs 21 and 22, 1st year students of the college,
stated in their evidence that when they were returning from the college at
about 12.45 p.m. on 06.11.1996 they saw the deceased and accused
together and accused stopped Navarasu and asked them to leave
from there and thereafter they had not seen Navarasu alive. PW-23,
Laboratory Attendant of the college, stated in his evidence that he saw both
accused and deceased in conversation with each other on 06.11.1996 at about
12.45 or 1.00 p.m. in front of Dean's office. PW-25, 2nd year college
student, stated that he also saw both accused and deceased together at about
2.00 p.m. on 06.11.1996. From the evidence of Dr. Sethupathy [PW-7], Mrs.
Alphonsa [PW-8], Prof. Gunasekaran [PW-10] and V. Balaji [PW-19] it also
comes out that till the afternoon of 06.11.1996 deceased attended the
lectures but after meeting with the accused he did not appear in the
lecture/test on the same day and was also absent thereafter from
lectures/tests. Ramaswamy [PW-20] also categorically stated that after
the viva-voce test held on 06.11.1996, he did not see the deceased
alive. From the evidence of all the abovesaid witnesses it is also clear that
the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the accused on 06.11.1996
between 12.45 to 2.00 p.m. and thereafter no one had seen the deceased
alive and this fact also supports the case of the prosecution.
Moreover accused admitted in his statement filed during question U/s
313, Cr.P.C. that he was sitting in the corridor of Dean's office in
the afternoon of 06.11.1996, which further corroborates the case of
prosecution.
34.In the present case there is no direct evidence to prove that the accused
had himself taken the torso and limbs of the deceased to Madras
and threw the limbs somewhere (while transit to Madras) and also
that accused carried the parcel of torso to Madras and dropped it in
the bus No. 21G at Tambaram but, there is only circumstantial evidence.
35.One of the clinching evidence against the accused is the two suitcases [MOs
13 & 14]. Raja Chidambaram [PW-37], the room mate of the accused,
stated in his evidence that the two suitcases in which the blood of the
deceased was found belong to the accused. He also stated that MO-22,
which is a bag in which the head of the deceased was recovered,
also belong to the accused. Shagir Thabris [PW-38] also corroborated the
said fact in his evidence. Blood found in the suitcases matched with the blood
of the deceased which is blood group `A'. It is also proved from the
evidence of the students adduced in the case that foul smell was emanating
from the said two suitcases and that when accused was asked about the
said smell, he only replied that it is because of Biryani, which his
mother had given him. Subba @ Vankatesan [PW-28], auto driver,
has affirmatively stated that the accused had taken out those two
suitcases with him in his auto rickshaw on 06.11.1996 when he
dropped him at Chidambaram Railway Station. The hostel chowkidar
examined as PW-29 [Vijayarangam] corroborated the said fact. The
students of the hostel, Senthilkumar [PW-40], Joe Bulgani [PW-41],
not only spoke about the foul smell emanating from the room where
those suitcases were kept but also of the fact that the accused had
brought those two suitcases with him when he came back to the
hostel on 08.11.1996 morning. These are indeed circumstantial evidence but
all leading to one conclusion that the accused is guilty of the offence
of killing the deceased. There is however some doubt with regard to
the place of occurrence but there is also strong and cogent evidence to
indicate that the room mates of the accused, i.e., PWs 37 and 38, were
watching a cricket match during the entire afternoon, evening and
till late night on 06.11.1996 in the TV room, and the accused had the room
(Room No. 319) all to himself in the aftrnoon and evening upto 11.00 p.m. The
accused left the said room with two suitcases at 8.30 p.m. which is proved by
way of evidence of the watchman and auto driver. The room mate of
the accused, viz., PW-38, came back to Room No. 319 at about 11.00 p.m.
and slept and on the next day went home.
41.In view of the aforesaid discussion, facts and circumstances of the case, we
are of the considered view that the High Court erred in reversing the order of
conviction recorded by the trial Court as the prosecution has established its
case. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment and order of the High
Court and restore the judgment and decision of the trial Court but
only with one rider that the sentence awarded shall run concurrently
and not consecutively as ordered by the trial court. While doing so we
rely upon sub-section (2) of section 31 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973.
42.In the result, the appeal is allowed, bail bond of the respondent
is cancelled and the respondent is directed to surrender before the jail
authorities immediately, failing which the concerned authorities are directed
to proceed in accordance with law.