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

2016 Supreme(SC) 717

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RANJAN GOGOI, PRAFULLA C. PANT, UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.
GOVINDASWAMY – APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1584-1585 OF 2014
Decided On : 15-09-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant : Mr. B.A. Aloor, Adv., Mr. Prasenjit Sarkar, Adv., Mr. Satheesh K.R. Niar, Adv., Mr. Rahul Gupta,Adv.
For Respondent: Mr. Nishe Rajen Shonker, Adv., Ms. Anu K. Joy, Adv., Mr. Gajendra Khichi, Adv., Mr. Jogy Scaria,Adv.(NP)

IMPORTANT POINT
In absence of any intention to cause death or the knowledge that then act would result in death, accused cannot be convicted u/s 302 IPC.

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 – Medical/forensic evidence and evidence of witnesses establishing guilt of appellant – No error in conviction. (Para 13)

       (b) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 394 r/w section 397 – Prosecution establishing that appellant, after committing the offence, taking away mobile phone of the deceased and selling it to P.W.7 who again sold it to P.W.10 from whom it was seized by the Police – No error in conviction. (Para 14)

       (c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Accused-appellant not having intention to cause death of deceased – Not established whether appellant pushed deceased out of train – Further, intention of the accused in keeping the deceased in a supine position was for the purposes of the sexual assault and not for causing death; neither he knew that it may cause death – Moreover deceased survived for two days in hospital – Appellant held not liable u/s 302 – Convicted and sentenced u/s 325. (Para 15, 17)

       Facts of the case:

       The accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced to death. He has additionally been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Besides, he has been found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 394 read with Section 397 IPC as well as under Section 447 of the IPC for which he has been separately sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three months respectively. The conviction of the accused appellant and the sentences imposed have been confirmed in appeal by the High Court.

       Finding of the Court:

       Conviction u/s 302 IPC is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

RANJAN GOGOI,J.

1. The accused appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and sentenced to death. He has additionally been convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Besides, he has been found guilty of the offences punishable under Section 394 read with Section 397 IPC as well as under Section 447 of the IPC for which he has been separately sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and three months respectively. The conviction of the accused appellant and the sentences imposed have been confirmed in appeal by the High Court. Aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.

2. The case of the prosecution in short is that the deceased/victim girl, aged about 23 years, was working in Ernakulam and was engaged to one Anoop (P.W.76), who also happened to be employed in Ernakulam. Their betrothal ceremony was to be in the house of the deceased at Shornur on 2nd February, 2011. P.W.76 along with his family members were scheduled to visit the house of the deceased on that day. Accordingly, on 1st February, 2011 the deceased boarded the Ernakulam-Shornur Passenger Train at about 5.30 p.m. from Ernakulam Town North Railway Station to go to her home at Shornur. The deceased had boarded the ladies division of the last compartment. There were other passengers in the ladies division of the compartment along with the deceased. When the train reached Mulloorkara, all other lady passengers in the ladies division of the compartment had alighted and, therefore, the deceased also got down along with them and hurriedly entered the ladies coach attached just in front of the last compartment. The train reached Vallathol Nagar Railway Station, where it halted for some time.

3. According to the prosecution, the accused appellant, who is a habitual offender, noticed that the deceased was alone in the ladies compartment. As soon as the train had left Vallathol Nagar Railway Station and moved towards Shornur the accused entered the ladies compartment. The prosecution alleges that inside the compartment the accused had assaulted the deceased and, in fact, repeatedly hit her head on the walls of the compartment. The prosecution has further alleged that the deceased was crying and screaming. It is the case of the prosecution that the victim was dropped/pushed by the accused from the running train to the track and that the side of her face hit on the crossover of the railway line. The accused appellant also jumped down from the other side of the running train and after lifting the victim to another place by the side of the track he sexually assaulted her. Thereafter he ransacked her belongings and went away from the place with her mobile phone.

4. It is the further case of the prosecution that P.W. 4 - Tomy Devassia and P.W. 40 - Abdul Shukkur were also traveling in the general compartment attached in front of the ladies compartment. According to the prosecution, the said witnesses heard the cries of the deceased. P.W. 4 wanted to pull the alarm chain to stop the train but he was dissuaded by a middle-aged man who was standing at the door of the compartment by saying that the girl had jumped out from the train and escaped and that in these circumstances he should not take the matter any further as the same may drag all of them to Court. However, when the train reached Shornur Railway Station within a span of 10 minutes, P.W.4 and P.W.40 rushed to P.W.34 – Joby Skariya, the guard of the train and complained about the incident which triggered a search, both, for the deceased and the accused. Eventually, the deceased was found in a badly injured condition lying by the side of the railway track and the accused was also apprehended soon thereafter in circumstances which need not detain the Court. According to the prosecution, the deceased was removed to the local Hospital whereafter she was taken to the Medical College Hospita
























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