Supreme Court of India
P. SATHASIVAM & JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.
Sunder @ Sundararajan – Appellant
Versus
State by Inspector of Police – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos.300-301 of 2011
Decided On : 05-02-2013
(b) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Fact of kidnapping - Resumption of consequential murder of the kidnapped person - Valid. (Paras 26 and 27)
(2001) 4 SCC 375 - Relied upon
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Valid presumption of murder after kidnapping - Recovery of dead body and deceaseds articles upon disclosure by accused - Conviction not vitiated. (Para 28)
(d) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 r/w section 364-A - Death sentence - Principles recalled - All aggravating circumstances duly considered - No mitigating circumstance available - Interference not warranted. (Para 31)
(2011) 12 SCC 56; (2010) 3 SCC 56 - Relied upon
Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged, convicted and sentenced under Sections 364-A, 302 and 201, IPC.
He was awarded death sentence u/s 302.
The conviction and sentences were affirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result : Conviction and sentence confirmed, appeal dismissed.
Judgment :-
Jagdish Singh Khehar, J.
1. On 27.7.2007 Suresh aged 7 years, who lived with his mother Maheshwari (PW1) at Karkudal village in Vridhachalam Taluk, left his residence in the morning as usual, at about 8 a.m. to attend his school at Vridhachalam. Suresh was a class II student at Sakthi Matriculation School at Vridhachalam. Each morning, he along with other students from the same village, would leave for school, in a school van at about 8.00 a.m. The same school van would bring them back in the afternoon at about 4.30 p.m. On 27.7.2009, Suresh did not return home. Maheshwari (PW1) his mother got worried and made inquiries. She inquired from Kamali (PW2), and from another student from the same village, who used to travel to school in the same van with Suresh. Kamali (PW2) told Maheshwari (PW1) that a man was waiting alongside a motorcycle when the school van returned to Karkudal village on 27.7.2009. The man informed Suresh that his mother and grandmother were not well. According to Kamali (PW2), the man told Suresh, that he had been asked by Maheshwari (PW1) to bring Suresh to the hospital. Based on the aforesaid assertions, Suresh had accompanied the man on his motorcycle. After having inquired from Kamali (PW2), Maheshwari (PW1) sought information from another student Malai, but could not gather any positive information from her. Thereafter, she was informed by Kurinji Selvan (PW3) belonging to the same village, that he had seen Suresh disembarking from the Sakthi school van on 27.7.2009 at about 4.30 p.m. He also told her, that a man standing alongside a motorcycle, had called out to Suresh and had taken Suresh along with him on his motorcycle. Kurinji Selvan (PW3) advised Maheshwari (PW1) to approach the police. Maheshwari (PW1) accordingly proceeded to Police Station, Kammapuram, to register a complaint. The said complaint was registered at 7 p.m. on the date of occurrence, i.e., on 27.7.2009 itself. Based thereon, Crime no.106 of 2009 was registered under Section 366 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. At about 9.30 p.m. on the same day, i.e., on 27.7.2009 Maheshwari (PW1) received a call on her mobile phone. The caller identified himself as Shankar. The caller demanded a ransom of Rs.5 lakhs for the release of Suresh. Immediately after the receipt of the aforesaid call, Maheshwari (PW1) again rushed to the Police Station Kammapuram, and informed the Station House Officer about the call received by her.
3. The investigating officer called Kasinathan (PW13), the then Village Administrative Officer of village Karkudal, Taluka Vridhachalam, to the Vridhachalam Police Station. Having taken permission from the Tehsildar, Kasinathan (PW13) and his assistant went to Vridhachalam. From there, they went to the house of the accused, and in the presence of Kasinathan (PW13), the two accused were apprehended. In the presence of Kasinathan (PW13), the accused made confessional statements, leading to the recovery of three mobile phone sets, two of which had sim cards. The accused also acknowledged, having strangulated Suresh when ransom was not paid for his release. The accused also confessed, that they had put the dead body of Suresh in a gunny bag, and thereafter, had thrown it in the Meerankulam tank. Based on the aforesaid confessional statement, in the presence of Kasinathan (PW13), and on the pointing out of the accused, the dead body of Suresh was retrieved by personnel belonging to the fire service squad. The dead body of Suresh was found in a gunny bag which had been fished out of the above-mentioned tank. The accused also made statements to the police, whereupon the school bag, books and slate belonging to the deceased Suresh came to be recovered from the residence of the accused, in the presence of Kasinathan (PW13).
4. During the course of the investigation emerging out of the mobile phones recovered from the accused, the police identified Saraswathi (PW8), who affirmed that she had received a phone call from a person who ca
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.