Exclusive knowledge of buried body leads to conviction, says Supreme Court

Supreme Court in a recent judgement (John Anthonisamy @ John Vs. State D.D. 19 Jan 2023) held that the accused disclosed the place where he had buried the deceased's body. The body was recovered from the place identified by the accused, who was in exclusive knowledge of its location. The super imposition test and DNA examination on the bones and skull confirmed that the body was that of the deceased. This was a strong circumstance against the accused, leading to his conviction.

The case involves the murder of a taxi driver, who was allegedly killed by a group of five people as part of a conspiracy to steal his car and personal belongings. The prosecution presented evidence including witness testimonies, a confession letter from one of the accused, and the recovery of the victim's body and stolen car. After a trial, the accused were found guilty and convicted. The appellant, who was accused No. 1, has appealed the conviction. High Court upheld the conviction. Accused approached the Supreme Court.

The learned counsel for the accused argues that the prosecution's case in this trial is based solely on circumstantial evidence, and that each link in the chain leading to the conclusion of the accused's guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt. The counsel disputes the establishment of homicide in the deceased's death and argues that the confessional statement of the accused is weak evidence. The counsel also contests the recovery of the dead body and car from the place identified by A-1, and argues that the extra judicial confession letter is not believable. The counsel further contends that the recovery of the stolen objects and the witnesses' testimony are untrustworthy and inadequate to sustain the charges against the accused. Finally, the counsel appeals for the acquittal of the accused, who has already served 15 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.

State opposed the appeal on the ground that the location and identification of the dead body by the defendant had been proven, as well as the recovery of the stolen car based on the Appellant's statement. The prosecution's expert witness's testimony was accepted. The appellant's failure to explain these circumstances in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code was noted. The court had rejected the deposition of a defense witness. The state requested the dismissal of the appeal.

Supreme Court notes that the accused was not convicted on the basis of his confessional statement, as there was no confession that he committed the offence. The High Court did not give much weight to the letter/communication submitted by the accused as it was not believed to be authentic. However, the communication/letter did play a role in reopening the case, and during the investigation, the accused disclosed the place where he had buried the deceased's body. The body was recovered from the place identified by the accused, who was in exclusive knowledge of its location. The super imposition test and DNA examination on the bones and skull confirmed that the body was that of the deceased. This was a strong circumstance against the accused, leading to his conviction.

Supreme Court observed that the recovery of the car driven by the deceased from the person and place disclosed by the accused, and the successful prosecution's proof of the same through examining a witness, PW-16, is the second strong circumstance against the accused. The prosecution has also successfully established that the engine and gear box sold by the accused were recovered from PW-17 on the accused's disclosure statement. Although PW-17 has turned hostile, the recovery of the engine and gear box from PW-17 based on the accused's disclosure statement has been established and proved by PW-30, a police witness. This is another circumstance against the accused.

Supreme Court further noted that the defense argues that the prosecution failed to prove that the death of the deceased was a homicidal death since the cause of death was unascertainable in the postmortem report. However, the prosecution has successfully established through other circumstances that the deceased was killed after his car was stolen/taken away by the accused.

Supreme Court concludes that the High Court did not commit any error in dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court for the accused's offenses under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. Appeal Dismissed.

John Anthonisamy @ John Vs. State