Section 302 IPC: SC Upholds Murder Conviction Of A Man Who Was Accused Of Killing A Taxi Driver
The Supreme Court has upheld the murder conviction of a man who was accused of killing a taxi driver.
The Court while dismissing an appeal filed by the accused held that the prosecution had established and proved that the deceased was killed after his car was stolen by the accused.
The accused was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code by the Madras High Court.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar observed, “… as the dead body was buried and was found after numbers of months, it may not be possible for the prosecution to prove that the death was a homicidal death. However, at the same time and as rightly observed by the High Court, by other circumstances the prosecution has established and proved that the deceased was killed after his car was stolen/taken away by the appellant – accused No. 1.”
The Bench also noted that when the Trial Court, as well as the High Court, convicted the accused, there is no reason to interfere with the same in the exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution.
Advocate N.S. Nappinai appeared on behalf of the appellant i.e., the accused while Advocate Joseph Aristotle S. appeared for the State.
Brief Facts –
The accused along with others was involved in murdering the driver of a taxi through a conspiracy by taking him to an isolated place, killing him, and stealing the car and other personal belongings owned by the deceased, and burying his dead body. It was the case on behalf of the accused that he was convicted on the confessional statement and therefore, in case of circumstantial evidence and unless and until the complete chain of events were proved and established, he could not have been convicted on a confessional statement.
The Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused which was thereafter confirmed by the High Court by passing the impugned judgment and order. Hence, the accused approached the Supreme Court by filing an appeal.
The Supreme Court after hearing the contentions of both parties asserted, “… as such the High Court has not given much weightage so far as the letter/communication is concerned. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant – accused No. 1 has been convicted on the confessional statement made in the letter/communication.”
The Court however observed that there was no reason for interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
“… we are more than satisfied that the High Court has not committed any error in dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court convicting the appellant – accused No. 1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC”, the Court said.
Accordingly, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal of the accused and upheld the order and judgment of the High Court.
Cause Title- John Anthonisamy @ John v. State, Rep. by the Inspector of Police