Judge Suthantheram: I read the judgment dt. 28-6-22 given by Division Bench of Madras High Court in C. A 737/2018 Dinesh vs. State. I have my own doubt about the correctness of acquittal of accused. Reasons: Thought it is a case of circumstantial evidence

[6/30, 07:00] Sekarreporter: [6/29, 22:04] Judge Suthantheram: I read the judgment dt. 28-6-22 given by Division Bench of Madras High Court in C. A 737/2018 Dinesh vs. State.
I have my own doubt about the correctness of acquittal of accused.
Reasons:
Thought it is a case of circumstantial evidence, one strong circumstance is that the recovery of a human body by exhuming from the place buried on the information given by accused. The place whether belongs to accused or not is irrelevant since the accused only knows that place. Next question whether body is identified as that of named deceased. According to statement of accused it is body of named deceased. Normally extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence but here confession statement of accused is strengthened by the fact of recovery of body. Neither finding nor any evidence to falsify the fact that body was recovered on the information given by accused. Confession of accused lead to a discovery of fact that the body of named deceased was buried. (Admissible in evidence) Court is to analyse the burden on the accused as per Evidence Act. What is within exclusive knowledge of accused it is for him to explain. If the body was not of named deceased and it was not buried by accused he must explain how he came to know that a body is buried there. The two circumstances interlocked to each point out the guilt of accused and especially in the absence of any explanation by accused before court, it may be said that the two circumstances do not lead to any other inference in favour of accused.
Each criminal case rests on its own facts and circumstances and precedents are to to be applied accordingly.
(Sudanthiram )
[6/29, 22:13] Sekarreporter: 💐💐🌹🌹
[6/30, 15:28] Sekarreporter: [6/30, 15:09] Judge Suthantheram: Mr. Rupert an eminent lawyer raised several relevant questions as reply to my comment on Dinesh case Judgment. The Court has not dealt with on those aspects except one or two. Only on getting evidence copy and trial court judgment further discussion is possible. Ofcourse Mr. Rupert rightly pointed out thatbbody is not scientifically proved as body of X and cause of death is not known.
My view is that, court has not given a finding homicide is not established. Though the recovered body is not proved scientifically as body of X, the statement of accused to the effect that body of X is burried which amounts to discovery of fact and that statement becomes true by the fact of recovering the body as shown by accused.
Mr Rupert is a great defence lawyer. I too was defence lawyer though not great. Latter as my position changed, may be my thinking goes different.
Legal profession is great and interesting one due to healthy interesting arguments.
Sometimes the controversy never ends.
Thanks to Mr. Rupert who responded in this matter.
(Sudanthiram )
[6/30, 15:22] Sekarreporter: 💐🌹🌹
[6/30, 15:28] Sekarreporter: [6/30, 08:56] RUPERT Mhc Advt: Dinesh vs State. Whether the exhumed body was identified by the kith and kin of the deceased that its the body of X? Whether super imposition of the skull of the deceased was conducted to establish is it the skull of X? Age of exhumation i.e., date of murder burial and body exhumed – What was the condition of the body to have been identified that the deceased is X? Did PM was conducted to detect the cause of death of X? Did Osteology examination conducted on the skeletal of the deceased X? What about the DNA test? If all those things had not been carried out by the Prosecution then the deceased is not X and Dinesh is entitled for acquittal
[6/30, 13:15] Sekarreporter: 💐