SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(SC) 96

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
19th August, 1958.
S.R. DAS, C.J.I., N.H. BHAGWATI, S.K. DAS, J.L. KAPUR AND K. SUBBA RAO, JJ.
Govinda Reddy (In Cr. As. Nos. 7 and 105 of 58); Krishna and another (In Cr. As. Nos. 8 and 106 of 1958), Appellants
Versus
State of Mysore, Respondent.
Criminal Appeals Nos. 7, 8, 105 and 106 of 1958.
Advocates appeared
Mr. J. B. Dadachanji, Advocate (at State expense), for Appellants; Mr. G. Channappa, Asst. Advocate General, for the State of Mysore, (Mr. T. M. Sen, Advocate, with him), for Respondent.

Advocates:
G.Channappa, J.B.DADACHAN, T.M.SEN

Judgment

SUBBA RAO, J. : These four appeals, the first two by Certificate issued by the High Court of Mysore under Art. 132 (1) of the Constitution of India and the other two by Special Leave granted by this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution of India, arise out of a sensational and gruesome murder of a lawyer of Bangalore and some of the members of his family at Bangalore in Mysore State.

2. The case of the prosecution lies in a small compass and may be stated thus: Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, at the time of his death, was 74 years of age and had amassed substantial properties. His first wife died in 1936 leaving behind her a son, who is said to be insane, and two daughters. After the death of the first wife, he married Vengadamma in February 1937 and had three daughters and three sons by her. Prior to 5th June 1956, Belur Srinivasa Iyengar had fractured his leg and was confined to bed. On the night of 5th June, 1956, the inmates of the house retried to bed as usual. Belur Srinivasa Iyengar was sleeping on a cot in his bed-room. His wife, Vengadamma, her daughter Rangalakshmi, her two sons Lava and Kusha and her mother Singamma were sleeping on three costs in a room adjoining the bed-room of Belur Srinivasa Iyengar. The other two daughters, Ratna and Prasanna, were sleeping in a separate room. Their servant, Ramalingam, was sleeping in the veranda. There was also a watch-dog in the house. Belur Srinivasa Iyengar being a rich man, there were cash, jewels, silver ware and other valuable articles kept in his house in iron-safes, almirahs, trunks and suit cases. On the morning of 6-6-1956, it was discovered the house was broken into & that some of the inmates of the house, viz., Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, his wife, mother-in-law, his two sons Lava and Kusha and their servant, Ramalingam, were lying dead with serious injuries on their bodies. The dog was also found doped and lying in a dying condition. The valuable articles from the iron-safes, almirahs and other boxes were found removed. Rangalakshmi, a daughter of Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, was found leaning against a wall with bleeding injuries on her head and in an unconscious state.

3. The version of the prosecution is that the appellants, who are related or at any rate closely associated with one another, getting scent of the fact that Belur Srinivasa Iyengar kept cash & valuable jewels in his house, conspired to commit murder and robbery, broke into his house on the right of 5th June, 1956 with deadly weapons, doped the dog, killed the servant, murdered Belur Srinivasa Iyengar, his wife, mother-in-law, two sons Lava and Kusha, caused grievous injuries to Rangalakshmi, took away the booty gathered in the house and divided the spoils amongst themselves.

4. The appellants were charged on the following counts. Section 302 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code; S. 307 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code; S. 457 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code; S. 380 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code; S. 392 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code; S. 394, Indian Penal Code; S. 397 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code and S. 460, Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined 116 witnesses. No witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellants Nos. 2 and 3. Three witnesses were examined on behalf of the first appellant. There were no eye-witnesses to the incident for the simple reason that all the persons who could have witnessed the occurrence were done away with and the only other member, Rangalakshmi who was sleeping in the same room along with her mother and others, was seriously injured and was in an unconscious state. It is in evidence that she continued to be unconscious for some days after the incident and thereafter also was not in a position to give evidence. The other two daughters, Ratna and Prasanna, who were providentially sleeping in a different room, escaped from being murdered and they came to know of the ghastly incident only on the early morning of the 6th June. In the circumstances th












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top