Back
2017 Supreme(SC) 825
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.
Sekar @ Dhanasekar – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by Inspector of Police (L & O) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1830 of 2013 with SLP (Crl) No. 966 of 2014
Decided On : 16-02-2017
For the Appellant : Mr. R.V. Kameshwaran.
For the Respondents: Mr. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Mrs. Mahalakshmi and Mr. Parthasarathi.
Circumstantial evidence, witness testimony, and motive for the crime are crucial in establishing guilt in a murder case.
Headnote:
Murder - Conviction Upheld - Motive, Identification of Assailants, and Circumstantial Evidence
Fact of the Case:
The appellant/petitioner was convicted for the murder of Dhanpal at Marina Beach. The daughter of the deceased witnessed the murder and identified the assailants. The motive for the murder was a disagreement over the administration of a community Trust and the performance of a festival.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court affirmed the conviction, considering the detailed testimony of the witness, the motive for the murder, and the identification of the assailants. The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's judgment.
Issues: Identification of assailants, motive for the murder, circumstantial evidence
Ratio Decidendi: The court upheld the conviction based on the witness's detailed testimony, the motive for the murder, and the identification of the assailants, considering the totality of the circumstances.
Final Decision: The appeal and the special leave petition were dismissed, and the conviction for the murder was upheld.
ORDER :
1. Both the appeal and the special leave petition are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 9 of 2007, dated 29.07.2008 whereby the High Court while dismissing the said appeal affirmed the judgment of the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai, convicting the appellant/ petitioner for the offences punishable under Section 302 read with 109 and Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively.
2. We have gone through the record of the case and in particular, the relevant evidence. We find that the deceased, Dhanpal was murdered by the accused when he was taking a walk at Marina Beach on 01.07.2005 at 6:00 p.m. accompanying by his daughter. The daughter who lodged an FIR deposed as PW-1. She stated that she was walking along with the deceased Dhanpal when the assailants came from behind. She heard one of them exhort other with the words "stab and kill him." Thereupon, the accused Ganesa Pandian, Puduraja, Ramamurthi and Sekar stabbed her father with a knife on his stomach, hip and head and thereafter they fled towards the beach with the blood stained knives.
3. She has described in detail, the motive, namely, some disagreement over the administration of community Trust and the performance of a festival. The accused had taken exception to the frequency with which the deceased had conducted the puja. This witness also participated in a Test Identification Prade where about 50 to 60 people were presented for identification. She correctly identified the assailants. It is clear to note that this witness was cross-examined with the suggestion that she was not at Marina Beach at the time of incident but was in her office. The defence controverted her with the absence of a swipe of the card which was supposed to be made at the time of exit. She has admitted that she had not swiped the card while exiting the office and that was a wrong committed by her.
4. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances of the case, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of the High Court.
5. The appeal and the special leave petition are, accordingly, dismissed.
