Sudalaimani vs State

P.N. Prakash, J.—The sole Accused who has been convicted and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and pay a fine of 71,000/-, in default to undergo six months'' Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo 4 years'' Rigorous Imprisonment and pay a fine of 7500/, in default to undergo 3 months'' Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence under Section 326, I.P.C. by the Additional District and Sessions Court [FTC-I, Chengalpattu], in S.C. No. 122/2009 on 22.10.2010, is the Appellant before this Court. It is the case of the prosecution that Sudalaimani, the Accused herein, is the husband of the deceased Shanmughasundari. They have a daughter Yogeshwari-PW2 and son Panneerselvam-PW3. The Accused used to suspect the fidelity of his wife and would quarrel with her. On the fateful day, i.e. on 17.10.2008 around 10.00 p.m. while the deceased was lying down in the house, the Accused fatally attacked her with a knife and in the course of the same transaction, he also attacked his daughter Yogeshwari-PW2 with an intention to kill her. On hearing the cries emanating from the house of the Accused, Paranthaman-PW1, who lives opposite the house of the Accused, came to the house of the Accused and through the window saw the Accused attacking his wife. Since the house door was locked from inside, Paranthaman-PW1 used a grinding stone-M02 to break open the house door and entered the house. He was also attacked by the Accused. Paranthaman-PW1 sent Yogeshwari-PW2 with his wife Prabavathy-PW4 and one Kesavan-PW7 to the Hospital for treatment. Later P.W. 1 also went to the Hospital and got treated for the injuries he sustained.

(a) Thereafter, Paranthaman-PW1 lodged a Written Complaint-Ex. P1 at 11.45 p.m. on 17.10.2008 with the Inspector of Police, Chrompet Police Station, which was received by A. Rajendiran-PW15, the Sub-Inspector of Police who registered a case in S-13, Chrompet Police Station Cr. No. 526/2008 for offences under Sections 341, 324, 307 & 302, I.P.C. and prepared the printed FIR-Ex. P12. The FIR and the Complaint reached the jurisdictional Magistrate at 4.00 a.m. on 18.10.2008, as could be seen from the endorsement thereon. The investigation in this case was taken over by Durairaj-PW16, the Inspector of Police, who went to the place of occurrence and examined Paranthaman P.W. 1, his wife Prabavathy-PW4 and Manikandan-PW5. In the presence of witnesses, Venkatesan-PW9 and Murugesan [not examined], he prepared the Observation Mahazar-Ex. P2 on 18.10.2008, between 1.30 a.m. and 2.00 a.m. He also prepared the Rough Sketch-Ex. P13. He conducted inquest over the body of Shanmughasundari in the presence of witnesses from 2.00 a.m. to 5.15 a.m. and the Inquest Report was marked as Ex. P14. He despatched the body of Shanmughasundari for Post-mortem to the Government Hospital, Chrompet. From the scene of occurrence, he seized the blood stained Plastic Mat-M03, blood stained Bed Sheet-M04, blood stained Mosaic Tile-M05 and mosaic tile without blood stains-M06 under the cover of Mahazar-Ex. P3 and also the grinding stone M02 under the cover of Mahazaar-Ex. P15. Thereafter, he examined certain witnesses in the place of occurrence and proceeded to the Government Hospital, Chrompet, where he recorded the statement of Yogeshwari-PW2.

(b) Autopsy was conducted on the body of deceased Shanmughasundari by Dr. Kavitha-PW14, who in her evidence as well in the Post-Mortem Certificate [Ex. P1 1] has noted the following injuries:

"External injuries:

(1) 5 x 1 cms bone deep laceration near right below wrist joint.

(2) 2 x 2 cm bone deep right palm

(3) 5 x 2 x 3 cm deep laceration over Rt shoulder joint

(4) 15 x 2 x 4 cm deep laceration extending from Rt ear to the Rt occipital region with all major vessels

(5) 4 x 2 x 1 cm piercing the Rt eye just above the eyebrow

(6) 5 x 1 cms deep laceration over the parietal region bone exposed

(7) 15 x 10 x 5 cm deep laceration over the elbow joint

(8) Bone deep laceration in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th finger cut just detached by the skin to the palm with all bones cut

(9) 4 x 3 x 1 cm deep laceration over the left lower limb just above the ankle point."

(c) The viscera from the internal organs were sent for chemical analysis and after receipt of the report from the Forensic Sciences Laboratory, Dr. Kavitha-PW14 opined that the death would have occurred due to multiple injuries due to haemorrhage and shock.

(d) On 18.10.2008 around 1.15 p.m., Durairaj, the Inspector of Police, P.W. 16 arrested the Accused and in the presence of Balasubramaniam [not examined] and Sarath Babu-PW10, recorded his Confession Statement and based on the disclosure, recovered an iron Aruval-MO1 under the cover of Mahazar-Ex. P4. The Accused was produced before the Judicial Magistrate for remand and the properties recovered in this case were sent under Form-95 to the Court. On 15.11.2008, he took PWs. 1 to 4 and produced them before the Judicial Magistrate-I, Chengalpattu, who recorded their statements under Section 164, Cr.P.C. He examined the Doctors who treated PWs. 1 & 2 and collected the Wound Certificate-Ex. P8 and a copy of the Accident Register-Ex. P9. He also examined the Doctor who conducted the Post-mortem. After completing the investigation, he filed a Final Report on 23.2.2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram against the Accused for offences under Sections 302, 307 & 326, I.P.C.

(e) Cognizance of the offences stated in the Final Report was taken by the committal Magistrate and on appearance of the Accused, he was furnished with copies of the documents under Section 207, Cr.P.C. and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Before the Sessions Court, three charges were framed:

(1) under Section 302, I.P.C. for causing the death of Shanmughasundari.

(2) under Section 307, I.P.C. for attempting to commit the murder of Yogeshwari-PW2 in the course of same transaction.

(3) under Section 326, I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt to Yogeshwari-PW2.

(f) We are surprised to note as to how two different charges, one under Section 307, I.P.C. and another under Section 326, I.P.C., for the same overt act alleged against the Accused in respect of Yogeshwari-PW2 can be framed.

Though there were materials before the Trial Judge that Paranthaman-PW1 was also attacked with knife and he suffered simple injury, strangely, no charge was framed for the offence under Section 324, I.P.C.

(g) The Accused denied the charges and on behalf of the prosecution 16 Witnesses were examined, 18 Exhibits and 6 Material Objects were marked. When the Accused was questioned about the incriminating circumstances under Section 313, Cr.P.C., he denied the same. No witness was examined on behalf of the Accused.

(h) After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Accused as aforesaid, aggrieved by which this Appeal has been preferred.

Mr. R. Sankarasubbu, the learned Counsel for the Appellant vehemently contended that the prosecution had failed to prove that the Accused had committed the murder of his wife Shanmughasundari, as there are no direct evidence to that effect. Paranthaman-PW1 in his evidence stated that he lives opposite the house of the Accused and knew the Accused, the deceased and their children well. He is owner-cum-driver of a taxi. On 17.10.2008, around 10.00 p.m., while he was returning to his house from work, he heard shouts. He went to the house of the Accused to find out the reason. His wife Prabavathy-PW4 also joined him. Through the window they saw the Accused attacking his wife with a knife. Paranthaman-PW1 and Prabavathy-PW4 shouted at the accused to stop the attack and banged the door. Since the door was locked from inside, Paranthaman-PW1 took a grinding stone-M02 and broke open the rear door and gained entry. The accused was continuing to attack Shanmughasundari and also attacked his daughter Yogeshwari-PW2. When Paranthaman-PW1 intervened, he was also attacked and he sustained injuries in his right hand. The Accused threatened to kill Paranthaman-PW1 also if he intervened. When the Accused menacingly advanced, P.W. 1 ran out of the house. After the dastardly act, the Accused left the house. P.W. 1 sent Yogeshwari-PW2 with his wife Prabavathy-PW4 and one Kesavan-PW7 to the Hospital for treatment. P.W. 1 has stated in his evidence that he also went to the Government Hospital, Chrompet for treatment. He deposed to the effect that he went to the Police Station and lodged a Written Complaint [Ex. P1] and also identified the knife-MO1 that was used by the Accused and the grinding stone-M02 that was used by him to break open the door of the house. In the cross-examination of Paranthaman-PW1 he stated that, while he was returning home around 10 o''clock, quarrel was going on in the house of the Accused. He further stated that he first went to the Hospital and only thereafter, he went to the Police Station and gave the Complaint.

Prabavathy-PW4 the wife of Paranthaman-PW 1 gave evidence corroborating P.W. 1 on certain aspects though she has not stated in the chief-examination that she saw the Accused attacking Shanmughasundari. She also stated that she saw through the window the Accused attacking her husband-Paranthaman-PW1 when he went inside the house. She stated that she took Yogeshwari-PW2 for treatment to the Hospital. In the cross-examination she stated that the quarrel was going on for about 15 minutes. The defence was not able to make serious dent in the evidence of Paranthaman P.W. 1 and his wife Prabavathy-PW4.

Another eyewitness is Manikandan-PW5, who is a Tenant in the portion behind that of the Accused. He also came to the place after hearing the noise and through the window he saw the Accused attacking Shanmughasundaram and Paranthaman-PW1. In the cross-examination he stated that the quarrel was going on for about half an hour.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Paranthaman-PW1 after sustaining injuries went to the Government Hospital, Chrompet at 1.00 a.m. on 18.10.2008, where he was examined by Dr. Dhanasekaran-PW13. The Accident Register copy-Ex. P9 shows that he was first seen by the Doctor at 1.00 a.m. on 18.10.2008. This corroborates the evidence of Dr. Dhanasekaran-PW13, who stated that while he was on duty in the Government Hospital, he examined Paranthaman-PW1 on 18.10.2008 at 1.00 a.m., and that he was found to have a lacerated injury in his right palm and also on his fingers. He was given first aid and was discharged immediately.

Mr. Sankarasubbu, learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that Paranthaman-PW1 has clearly stated in his evidence that he went to the Hospital first and only thereafter, he went to the Police Station to lodge the Complaints. Whereas, from the evidence of A. Rajendiran-PW15 the Sub-Inspector of Police, who received the Complaint and registered a case, it is seen that the Complaint was lodged at 11.45 p.m. on 17.10.2008. The printed FIR-Ex. P19 also states that the case was registered at 11.45 p.m. on 17.10.2008. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, the FIR becomes suspect.

Assuming for a moment that the FIR becomes suspect as contended by the learned Counsel, can we disbelieve the evidence of Paranthaman-PW1 on this short score alone? Even if we keep the evidence of Paranthaman-PW1 and Prabavathy-PW4 in the back burner and if we analyse the evidence of Yogeshwari-PW2 and Panneerselvam-PW3, who are none other than the children of the deceased and the Accused, it will be clear that the prosecution version is not false.

Yogeshwari-PW2 in her evidence stated that she was studying in 10th standard when the incident took place. Her father was running a Tea Stall nearby and that her brother Panneerselvam PW3 was studying in 6th standard. On 17.10.2008, she went with her mother and brother to the house of her maternal uncle for Seemandam [ceremonies performed for safe delivery by a pregnant woman] and returned home around 8.00 in the night. As her mother was tired, she spread a mat in the verandah and went to sleep, while Yogeshwari-PW2 and her brother Panneerselvam-PW3 were watching TV. Thereafter, her father came home. He entered the house and locked the doors from inside and woke up their mother from sleep. Since Shanmugasundari was tired, she did not immediately get up. She stated that her father went into the bedroom and brought a knife and saying, "It is better that you die than you live", started attacking her mother on her neck, shoulders and hands. Yogeshwari-PW2 and her brother Panneerselvam-PW3 started shouting and at that time, Paranthaman-PW1 and Manikandan-PW5 came to the house. Her father inflicted injuries on her hand, right shoulders, head and left cheek. She also stated in her evidence that Paranthaman-PW1 used a grinding stone to break open the rear door of the house and entered the house. Her father attacked Paranthaman-PW1 also with the knife. Thereafter, Yogeshwari-PW2 was carried to the Hospital by Prabavathy-PW4 and Kesavan-PW7. She stated that she gave a statement before the Judicial Magistrate also. In her cross-examination it was suggested to her that, she was not studying properly and her father would beat her, on account of that she has ill feeling towards him, which was of course was denied by her. It was suggested to her that someone else had entered the house and caused the death of her mother in the night time and that she is falsely implicating her father, which suggestion was also denied by her.

Panneerselvam-PW3 in his evidence before the Court stated that on 17.10.2008, he went along with his mother and sister Yogeshwari-PW2 to the house of his maternal uncle for the Seemandam ceremony of his aunt. They returned home around 8.00 in the night and when they were watching TV, his father came and woke up his mother. When his mother did not immediately get up, he went into the bed room and brought a knife and started attacking her indiscriminately. On hearing their shouts, Paranthaman uncle P.W. 1 broke open the rear door with a grinding stone and tried to over power his father. In the process he suffered injuries. He saw his father running away thereafter. In the cross-examination he stated that the incident took place for 20 minutes. Nothing substantial was elicited in the cross-examination of this witness except suggesting to him that at the instance of his grand mother he has been tutored to give false evidence in this case, which suggestion he denied.

The other important witness in this case is Kesavan-PW7, who is also a neighbour and knew the family of the Accused well. PW7 has stated that on 17.10.2008, around 10 o''clock he heard lot of noise from the house of the Accused. He went to the house of the Accused and through the window he saw the wife of the Accused and the daughter with injuries. He took Yogeshwari-PW2 in his two wheeler to the hospital and admitted her. In his cross-examination he stated that when he saw through the window, Shanmugasundari had already fallen on the floor. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.

Thus from the evidence of Yogeshwari-PW2 and Panneerselvam-PW3 it is clear that Paranthaman-PW1 and Prabavathy-PW4 who are neighbours, had come to the house on hearing the noise emanating from the house and Paranthaman-PW1 had gained access into the house by breaking open the rear door with the grinding stone-M02. When Paranthaman-PW1 tried to intervene, the Accused assaulted him also. So the presence of Paranthaman-PW1 and Prabavathy-PW4 has been vividly spoken to by Yogeshwari-PW2 and Panneerselvam-PW3.

In the light of such categorical evidence, just because the FIR has been registered at 11.45 p.m. on 17.10.2008, but whereas, Paranthaman-PW1 has stated in his evidence that he first went to the hospital and only thereafter, he filed the Complaint, is a discrepancy, over which great significance need not be attached. Paranthaman-PW1 & Prabavathy-PW4 have no motive to falsely implicate the Accused.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant made a scathing attack on the steps taken by the Investigating Office for having the statements of Paranthaman-PW1, Yogeshwari-PW2, Panneerselvam-PW3 and Prabavathy PW4 recorded by the Magistrate under Section 164, Cr.P.C. He placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Balak Ram Vs. State of U.P., , wherein, the Supreme Court has said that:

"The evidence of witnesses, whose statements are recorded under Section 164 must he approached with caution."

Relying on this one single line he submitted that the evidence of PWs. 1 to 4 should be ignored.

In the same Judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that:

"It would be wrong to find fault with the Investigating Officer merely because he got the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 164. Nor can the evidence of a witness be discarded for the mere reason that his statement was recorded under Section 164".

In this case, the Accused has killed his wife and that has been witnessed by his two children. There will be possibilities for the children to support their father during trial and therefore, as a measure of abundant caution, the Investigating Officer has taken steps to have their statements recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. We find nothing wrong in that.

The learned Counsel took us through the 164, Cr.P.C. statements of PWs. 1 to 4 and attempted to draw the contradictions in their statement, vis-�-vis, their evidence, by reading them out. This method is absolutely impermissible because, a Statement recorded under Section 164, Cr.P.C. is not a substantive piece of evidence and that it can be used either to contradict or corroborate the testimony of the witness in the Court. If the defence wants to impeach the credibility of a witness with the aid of his previous statement, he should have to resort to the procedure laid down in Section 145 of the Evidence Act. Section 145 clearly states that if a previous statement is to be used for contradicting a witness, the attention of the witness must be called to those parts of it, which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him.

Without giving an opportunity to the witness by confronting him with those parts, the same cannot be used by comparing it with the evidence of the witness on record during arguments. Therefore, we will not look into the Section 164-Statements to search for contradictions as contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

Mr. Sankarasubbu, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that Paranthaman-PW1, his wife Prabavathy-PW4 and Manikandan-PW5 could not have witnessed the occurrence through the window of the house as stated by them, because there is no reference to window either in the Observation Mahazar of in the Rough Sketch. This argument has been built up based on the answer given by the Investigating Officer that he has not mentioned about the windows in the Rough Sketch-Ex. P13 and in the Observation Mahazar-Ex. P2. The Observation Mahazar-Ex. P2 describes the location of the house and the details regarding the place where the body of Shanmughasundari was found when the Investigating Officer visited the scene of occurrence. On a bare perusal of the Rough Sketch-Ex. P13, the Investigating Officer has shown the presence of windows in the house of the Accused and has marked them as "W". The inattentiveness of the prosecutor, who conducted the trial to clarify this in the re-examination, cannot enure to the advantage of the Accused.

The prosecution has clearly established from the evidence of Dr. Kavitha-PW14 about the homicidal death of Shanmughasundari. The knife used by the Appellant has also been identified by Paranthaman-PW1. Both the children of the accused have graphically explained in their evidence the brutal attack he unleashed, not only on his wife, but also on his daughter Yogeshwari-PW2. Yogeshwari-PW2 was examined by Dr. Dhanasekaran-PW13, who in his evidence stated that, on 17.10.2008 around 10.25 p.m. he examined 15 years old girl by name Yogeshwari-PW2 and she was found to have the following injuries:

"Cut injuries Rt. hand, Rt. forearm, Rt. & Lt. Scapular region, Lt. forearm, Rt. elbow. Lacerated wound 3rd web space. Rt. hand exposing cut. Tender. All cut injuries are lacerated wounds of various size."

As an inpatient, she was referred to the Government Hospital for further treatment as she had suffered serious injuries. From the nature of the attack, the Trial Court was right in acquitting the Accused for the offence under Section 307, I.P.C. as there was no intention to kill Yogeshwari-PW2. The conviction and sentence of the Appellant for the offence under Section 326, I.P.C. for causing grievous hurt to Yogeshwari-PW2 with knife-MO1 is legally sustainable.

At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Accused had committed the act of culpable homicide under grave and sudden provocation, to establish, which he wanted this Court to read the Confession Statement of the Accused that was recorded by the Police, which is though not marked and proved, is available in the Trial Court records.

In support of this contention, the learned Counsel relied upon the Judgment of this Court in In Re: Mottai Thevar, ; Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, ; Khatri Hemraj Amulakh Vs. The State of Gujarat, ; and Vairamuthu v. State, 1996 (1) LW (Cri) 9. We are also aware that even recently a Division Bench of this Court in S. Shajin Vs. The State, , has relied upon Mottai Thevar''s case and has taken into consideration the confession made by the Accused to the Police Officer in favour of the Accused.

We were not shown any Judgment of the Supreme Court, wherein a Police confession that was recorded after the commencement of investigation was taken into consideration in favour of the Accused. In Aghnoo Nagesia''s case and Khatri Hemraj''s case, the Accused after committing the offence went straight to the Police Station, gave a statement to the Police confessing to his guilt, which formed the basis for registering the First Information Report and investigation proceeded thereafter. In both the cases, the Supreme Court refused to take into consideration even admissions which are incriminating in nature. In the two cases, the Supreme Court also did not use the confession in favour of the Accused. The earliest case where the Police confession was used to give advantage to the Accused is Mottai Thevar''s case. The facts of that case is under:

"2.........The Prosecution case is that on 20.11.1950 on shandy day in this village, the Appellant came to the Police Station at about 2.30 p.m. with a blood stained spear. The Statement recorded from him by the Sub-Inspector P.W. 15 was ruled out as inadmissible in evidence quite rightly but most unfortunately in this case as, under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a confession made to a Police Officer cannot be proved against an Accused.

... ... ...

We have no doubt at all that the Appellant, after spearing the deceased at the shandy, went straight to the Police Station with the blood-stained spear and there made a clean breast of the offence and that this was the first information received in the case. Even assuming that he was caught by a constable going off with the blood-stained spear and taken to the Police Station, the statement he made there should certainly be considered in his favour. It is obvious that the learned Sessions Judge did not peruse the Case Diary as he was entitled to do under Section 172(2), Crl.P.C. The result of our perusal of the confession recorded from him at the Police Station is that not only do we find mitigating circumstances to justify the imposition of the lesser punishment but we also feel justified in making a recommendation to the Government for commutation of the sentence."

From the facts it is clear that after commission of the crime, the Accused surrendered to the Police and gave a Statement, which was confession in nature, based on which the FIR was registered and only thereafter, the investigation commenced. In those circumstances, this Court held that, under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, a Police confession cannot be proved as against the Accused person, but it can be used in favour of the Accused person. In all the subsequent Judgments of this Court, Mottai Thevar''s case has been construed as sanctioning the use of Police confessions given during the course of investigation in favour of the Accused. This is clearly against Section 162, Cr.P.C., which imposes a ban in the usage of a Statement recorded during the course of investigation and it only saves Section 32(1) and Section 27 of the Evidence Act. A Confession Statement made by the Accused to the Police Officer during the course of investigation will undoubtedly fall within the sweep of Section 162, Cr.P.C. The fact that Section 162, Cr.P.C. carves out Section 27 of the Evidence Act as an exception would by itself show that the Statement of an Accused during the course of investigation will attract the ban under Section 162, Cr.P.C. This aspect has been very clearly held by the Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia''s case itself:

"It provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a Police Officer, so much of such information whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered may be proved. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure forbids the use of any Statement made by any person to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of the offence under investigation, save as mentioned in the proviso and in cases falling under sub-section (2), and it specifically provides that nothing in it shall be deemed to affect the provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The words of Section 162 are wide enough to include a confession made to a Police Officer in the course of an investigation"

Relying upon the statement of law made by the Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nagesia''s case, we have no hesitation in holding that a Police confession made after the commencement of investigation cannot be used to give any benefit or advantage to the Accused in the light of the ban imposed by Section 162, Cr.P.C.

In fact, in Aloke Nath Dutta and Others Vs. State of West Bengal, , the Supreme Court has prohibited the marking of the Police confession.

"53. It is, however, disturbing to note that a confession has not been brought on record in a manner contemplated by law. Law does not envisage taking on record the entire confession by marking it an exhibit incorporating both the admissible and inadmissible part thereof together. We intend to point out that only that part of confession is admissible, which would be leading to the recovery of dead body and/or recovery of articles of Biswanath; the purported confession proceeded to state even the mode and manner in which Biswanath was allegedly killed. It should not have been done. It may influence the mind of the Court."

We are aware that if a Division Bench dissents with the view of a Coordinate Division Bench, then the matter should be referred to a Full Bench for resolution. In this case, all the Division Benches have given the benefit of a Police confession obtained during the course of investigation to the Accused relying upon either Mottai Thevar''s case or Aghnoo Nagesia''s case. We are not disagreeing with the proposition of law laid down in Mottai Thevar''s case or Aghnoo Nagesia''s case. We are simply following them after noting that in the said two cases the Accused surrendered to the Police immediately after committing the offence and gave a Confession Statement. This singular aspect makes an ocean of difference while determining the legal position which was inadvertently lost sight of by the subsequent Division Benches in the thicket of their noble and laudable objective to grant benefits to the Accused. With great respect to them, in our humble opinion, these Judgments are per incuriam.

We may have to face a criticism that we have shut a ventilator that was available for the Accused to have their convictions altered to lesser offences based on their Police confessions. We would plead guilty to this charge gracefully rather than approve of a procedure that is against the law and Supreme Court ruling. To sum up, if a confession is given to the Police Officer before the start of investigation, then it can be used in favour of the Accused as held in Mottai Thevar''s case. If it is given after the commencement of the investigation, its use even in favour of the Accused is barred by Section 162 of the Code.

In the result, we uphold the conviction and sentence imposed on the Appellant for the offences under Section 326 & 302 I.P.C. by the Trial Court. The Appeal stands dismissed.