NDLI: Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	1860 - ss. 302 364 and 342 201 Penal Code
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4 Referred Case 5
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302, 201, 364 and 342 - Gruesome murder - Dead body cut into different pieces - PW1 's son was studying for a medical degree and staying in the college hostel - He was allegedly killed by respondent, a senior student in the same college - Allegation that respondent caused head injury to the deceased and when deceased was lying on the ground unconscious, the respondent severed his head and limbs and removed his gold ring, watch and gold chain - Further a/legation that thereafter, respondent put the head and the gold articles of 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 and threw the limbs in a river while the train was in transit and put the torso in a bus - Trial court convicted respondent under ss. 302, 201, 364 and 342 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment - High Court acquitted the respondent - Justification of - Held: Not justified - All the witnesses were independent and respectable eye-witnesses - From the evidence of the witnesses, it was clear that the respondent nurtured ill feeling against the deceased as the deceased refused to write the record note for respondent; that the deceased was last seen with the respondent and that the conduct of respondent was very weird and strange and the bags/suitcases kept by him also produced stinking smell - Skull of deceased was recovered from canal water, and material objects, like, note books of deceased, gold chain, blood stained bags, knifes etc. were also recovered - Also, evidence of three specialist doctors who categorically stated that the skull, torso and limbs recovered were of the deceased only - Strong and cogent circumstantial evidences deduced from the investigation logically and rationally point towards the guilt of the respondent - No other possible or plausible view favouring the respondent -Conviction of respondent restored. Appeal -Appeal against acquittal - Power of the appellate court - Held: While dealing with an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court has no restriction to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded - On such review, the appellate Court would consider the manner in which the evidence was dealt with by the lower Court - At the same time, if the lower Court's decision is based on erroneous views and against the settled position of law, then such an order of acquittal should be set aside - Further, if the trial Court has ignored material and relevant facts or misread such evidence or has ignored scientific documents, then in such a scenario the appellate court is competent to reverse the decision of the trial court.Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - Held: Each and every incriminating circumstance must be clearly established by reliable and clinching evidence and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion that could be drawn is the guilt of the accused and that no other hypothesis against the guilt is possible - In a case depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a. danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof - The Court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of events have been established clearly and such completed chain of events must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused - There is a long mental distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. Investigation/Inquiry - Held: Minor loopholes and irregularities in the investigation process cannot form the crux of the case on which an accused can rely upon to prove his innocence when there are strong circumstantial evidences deduced from the investigation which logically and rationally point towards the guilt of the accused.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalveer Bhandari
Neutral Citation	2011 INSC 316
Petitioner	Inspector Of Police, Tamil Nadu
Respondent	John David
SCR	[2011] 7 S.C.R. 354
Judgement Date	2011-04-20
Case Number	384

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David

Please Log-in to view this content

Malleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Amit Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Vinay D. Nagar Vs. State of Rajasthan

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Manmatharaj

Krishnan @ Ramasamy & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Arumugam Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Kishore Bhadke Vs. State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Vs. State Through Inspector of Police

Arun Vs. State By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David

Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Malleshappa Vs. State of Karnataka

Amit Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

Vinay D. Nagar Vs. State of Rajasthan

State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Manmatharaj

Krishnan @ Ramasamy & Ors. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

Arumugam Vs. State Rep. By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Kishore Bhadke Vs. State of Maharashtra

Ramesh Vs. State Through Inspector of Police

Arun Vs. State By Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu Vs. John David