Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P.N. SHINGHAL, JJ.
Ramanathan, Appellant
Versus
The State of T.N., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 483 of 1976
Decided on 18-4-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Frank Anthony, Sr. Advocate (M/s. S. C. Agarwal, P. Ramachandran, Aruneshwar Gupta and Sushil Kumar, Advocates with him), for Appellant; Mr. A. V. Rangam, Advocate, for Respondent.
Indian Penal Code - Section 302/307/460 - Arms act – Section 27 - Rigorous imprisonment – Offence of murder – Injury - It is alleged that at about 2she heard a loud cry from the direction of her sons room and thought that he was shouting in his dream - But she heard the sound of a shot immediately thereafter - She woke up her husband and asked him to go and look in room opened the door leading to the drawing hall which was adjacent to his bed room. Smt. heard the sound of another gun shot. She went towards the drawing hall and saw appellant standing at a distance of from the door of the drawing hall and firing his pistol at her husband who was standing near the eastern window of that room. Smt. raised an alarm shouting - Her husband moved to catch the appellant who went near the western portion of the drawing hall and fired at - Shot grazed her body just above her stomach caught hold of the hands of the appellant and there was a tussle between them - Appellant shot at repeatedly fell down but rose up. He dashed against the wall of the drawing hall. Smt. went to his rescue appellant shot at her stomach. She turned to go to the other room to use the telephone but the appellant hit her with the pistol on her head – Held, It has next been argued by that the appellant could not possibly have committed the murders as he had written a letter to the Magistrate informing him that he was involved in two motor-cycle accidents in 1948 and 1963, three car accidents had been injured in when a constable stamped on his leg, and had lost his vision in the accident etc. Reference in this connection has also been made to the statement of the Investigating Officer showing that accused was brought to the Court of Sessions by supporting him with an arm, and to the fact that he was found by the police in the Eye Hospital after the present incident. We find that a similar argument was urged for the consideration of the trial court as well as the high Court, but it was rejected for satisfactory reasons. was the Inspector of the Civilian Rifle Training Centre, at, has stated that the appellant was one of the members of the Centre who received training under him from and passed the test having secured a high percentage of marks - Witnesses has stated that the appellant was in a fit state of health, that his vision was all right, and that he could shoot the rifle by triggering it only with his left hand. He has further stated that the appellant used to take aim with his left eye and press the trigger with his left forefinger and that a person who knows how to fire a rifle can also fire a revolver. There is therefore no occasion for us to re-examine the finding of the two courts regarding the ability of the appellant to commit the crimes - An attempt has also been made to argue that there was no justification for the High Court to take into consideration the evidence regarding the movement of the appellant after the occurrence and that he did not in fact abscond and his statement that he had gone to Madras to see off Subramania Thevars son on Sept. 20, 1974, as he was leaving for America, should have been accepted - . Even if the other evidence on the record is left out of consideration, there can be no doubt that the deceased had purchased the coconut tope from the appellants brother and the appellant was not only challenging his possession but was pressing him for a resale - Appeal dismissed
Please provide the actual content of the legal document (replace {content} with the document text) so I can analyze it and extract key points with the required referencing format (e.g., (!) (!) ).
JUDGMENT
P. N. SHINGHAL, J.:— This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Madras High Court dated Feb. 19, 1976, convicting appellant Ramanathan of offences under Section 302 (on two counts), S. 307 and S. 460 of the I.P.C. and S. 27 of the Arms act. The High Court has confirmed the sentence of death for the offences under S. 302, and has upheld the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence under s. 307, of rigorous imprisonment for 10 years for the offence under S. 460 and of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for the offence under S. 27 of the Arms Act.
2. Natarajan (deceased) who was a well to do yarn merchant of Nagercoil used to live there in his own house in Kumari Colony. His wife Smt. Nagammal (P.W. 1) used to live with him in that house. Their second son Vadadarajan (deceased) was 21 years old and was studying in fourth year in the Medical College at Palayam Kottai. As Sept. 19, 1974 was Vinayakchaturthi day, he took leave of absence for a day and came to his fathers house in Nagaricoil on Sept. 18, 1974. On the following day (Sept. 19, 1974) Natarajan returned home from his shop, in his car, at about 9 p.m. His driver parked the car in the compound of his house, locked the gate of the compound wall, delivered its key to Smt. Nagammal and went away. The other servants also went away at about 6 p.m. as usual. Smt. Nagammal locked the outer gate of her house as well as the grill door of the front verandah. Natarajan, his wife Smt. Nagammal and their son Varadarajan took their food at about 10 p.m. Varadharajan went to the office room, which was adjacent to the bed room of his parents, for study. Smt. Nagammal retired to her bed room and went to sleep. She woke up and went to the bath room at about 1-30 a.m. She saw that Varadarajan was sleeping on the cot which was there for the purpose in the office room. One leaf of the door of that room was open at that time. Smt. Nagammal went back to her bed room and slept there leaving one of the doors of her bed room open. A zero watt pulb was burning in her bed room.
3. It is alleged that at about 2-30 a.m. she heard a loud cry from the direction of her sons room and thought that he was shouting in his dream. But she heard the sound of a shot immediately thereafter. She woke up her husband Natarajan and asked him to go and look in Varadarajans room. Natarajan opened the door leading to the drawing hall which was adjacent to his bed room. Smt. Nagammal heard the sound of another gun shot. She went towards the drawing hall and saw appellant Ramanathan standing at a distance of about 1 1/2 feet from the door of the drawing hall and firing his pistol at her husband who was standing near the eastern window of that room. Smt. Nagammal raised an alarm shouting ayyo. Her husband moved to catch the appellant who went near the western portion of the drawing hall and fired at Smt. Nagammal. The shot grazed her body just above her stomach. Natarajan caught hold of the hands of the appellant and there was a tussle between them. The appellant shot at Natarajan repeatedly. Natarajan fell down but rose up. He dashed against the wall of the drawing hall. Smt. Nagammal went to his rescue, and the appellant shot at her stomach. She turned to go to the other room to use the telephone but the appellant hit her with the pistol on her head. The appellant then pressed the head of her husband with his pistol and went towards the front verandah. Smt. Nagammal again shouted ayyo and ran after him. She put on the verandah lights and the from light of her house and shouted ayyo and cried that the thief was running away after shorting. She found that one of the grill doors of the verandah was open at that time. The appellant ran through it, picked up a bag from near Natarajans car, scaled over the front compound wall and ran away on the road. Rajagopal (P.W. 2) who was living in the opposite house heard the reports of the shots and Smt. Nagammals shouts and came running so quic
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
