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

1970 Supreme(SC) 190

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. HIDAYATULLAH, C.J.I. A.N. RAY AND I.D. DUA, JJ.
Thimma, Appellant
Versus
The State of Mysore, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 245 of 1969, D/- 2-4-1970.
Advocates appeared
Mr. K M. K. Nair, Advocate at State expense, for the Appellant M/s. S. S. Javali and S. P. Nayar, Advocates, for the Respondent.

Headnote:

Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302, S. 201 – Offence of Murder – Conviction – Capital sentence - Abetment of murder- No eye witness to offence – Deceased Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent in the postal department - Disappearance of the deceased – Identity of deceased death body - Whether the circumstantial evidence accepted by the courts below establishes the murder of the deceased by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt –Motive to commit Murder – Held, deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant- Appellant had developed close intimacy with the wife of the deceased-Held, trial Court and the High Court have also been influenced by the fact that the appellant had absconded after September 1, 1967 when the police got suspicious of his complicity in this offence. It is true that the appellant did make himself scarce with effect from September 1, 1967 till he was arrested on September 5, 1967 and this conduct is relevant under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and might well be indicative to some extent of guilty mind. But this is not the only conclusion to which it must lead the Court. Even innocent persons may, when suspected of grave crimes, be tempted to evade arrest: such is the instinct of self-preservation in an average human being. We are, therefore, not inclined to attach much significance to this conduct on the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.- entire prosecution case depends on circumstantial evidence and the dead body was actually recovered in a decomposed state when it was not capable of identification- evidence on the record establishes the appellant s guilt beyond reasonable doubt- Appeal dismissed

Judgment

DUA, J.: The appellant was convicted by the Sessions Judge, Shimoga, under S. 302, I. P. C. for the murder of one Govindappa, a village postman and was awarded capital sentence. He was also held guilty of an offence under S. 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. The High Court of Mysore confirmed the conviction and sentence under S. 302, I. P. C. It also upheld his conviction under S. 201, I. P. C. but set aside the sentence on this court observing that when a person is convicted both under S. 302 and S. 201, I. P. C, it is undesirable to pass separate sentences for both offences. In this appeal with special leave the appellant challenges his conviction and sentence under S. 302, I.P.C.

2. The appellant was tried, along with Laxmamma (accused no. 2) wife of the deceased Govindappa and her mother Gangamma (accused no. 3) wife of late Mylappa. The two women were charged with abetment of murder and were acquitted by the trial court. We are not concerned with them m this appeal. There is no eye witness in the case and the courts below have accepted the prosecution story on circumstantial evidence. The question before us is whether the circumstantial evidence accepted by the courts below establishes the murder of the deceased by the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution story may now be stated.

3. The deceased, Govindappa, resident of Kommanal village in Shimoga Taluk worked as Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent in the postal department. He was attached to the post office at Kommanal and was in common parlance called a postman. G. Sangaiah (P. W. 1) resident of village Abbalagere worked as an Assistant School Teacher in Kommanal. The distance between the two villages is 13/4 miles. P. W. 1 also worked as Branch Postmaster in Kommanal and was called Extra Departmental Postmaster. According to him the duties of the deceased were to bring the postal bags from the M. M. S. Bus on the main road in the morning at about 8.30 a. m. and after the bags were opened by P. W. 1 to deliver the postal articles to their respective addresses. At about 4.30 p. m. he would return to the post office to take the postal bags to the Mall Service Bus. Six villages were attached to this post office. The deceased used to deliver postal articles in two groups of three villages each on alternate days. On July 21, 1967 at about 10 A. M. the deceased received the postal articles from P. W. 1 for delivering them to the addresses in villages Kittadal, Kunchenhalli and Bikkonahalli. The articles to be delivered included two registered letters addressed to Krishna Naika and Halanaika of Kittadal. At about 3.30 p.m. the deceased returned and told P. W. 1 that the addressees, having gone to their fields, were not in the village, and that he would again try to deliver the registered articles to them. The deceased took the postal bags from the post office for delivery to the Mail bus. He did not return to duty thereafter. As the deceased had been in the service of the post office for nearly 3 1/2 years, P. W. 1 did not suspect his bona fides. On July 22, 1967 P. W. 1 went to the house of the deceased but did not find him there. Thinking that the deceased might have been unavoidably held up somewhere P. W. 1 in addition to his own duties performed those of the deceased as well on that day. On July 23, P. W. 1 went to village Kittadal to inquire about the delivery of the registered articles to the addressees. There he learnt from Krishna Naika (P. W. 15) that on July 21, 1967 the deceased had delivered to him the registered article at about 6 p.m. P. W. 15 on being questioned by the court gave the time of delivery to be about 4 p. m. But this difference as to time, in the opinion of the trial court, was due to the fact that the witness had no precise idea of time. After having waited for another day on July 24, 1967 P. W. 1 reported to the Postal Inspector, Shimoga Circle about the disappearance of the deceased, Exhibit P-1 is
























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