1. Conviction for kidnapping and murder under Sections 364 and 302/34 IPC based on circumstantial evidence and common intention. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2018 Supreme(SC) 440
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. Agrawal, Abhay Manohar Sapre, JJ.
Murugan – Appellants
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1498 of 2010
Decided On : 02-05-2018
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
Supreme Court would not interfere with concurrent finding of the courts below against the accused based on due appreciation of evidence.
When the accused did not explain the circumstances against him apart from merely denying his involvement in the crime and the chain of circumstances including last seen theory is complete against him, his conviction cannot be faulted.
When two accused commit a crime with common intention and active participation, death of one of them will have no bearing on conviction of the other.
Supreme Court would not interfere with concurrent finding of the courts below against the accused based on due appreciation of evidence.
When the accused did not explain the circumstances against him apart from merely denying his involvement in the crime and the chain of circumstances including last seen theory is complete against him, his conviction cannot be faulted.
When two accused commit a crime with common intention and active participation, death of one of them will have no bearing on conviction of the other.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Constitution of India – Article 136 – Courts below recording concurrent finding against accused based on due appreciation of evidence – Supreme Court would not interfere. (Para 20)
(b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 313 – Appellant not explaining circumstances against him – Merely denying his involvement in the crime not enough – Chain of circumstances including last seen theory complete against appellant – Rightly convicted. (Para 28, 29, 32)
(c) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 34 – Two accused committing crime having common intention – One accused dying – Other accused actively participating in the crime till last with the other accused – Death of the other accused not significant to case of the accused. (Para 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 364 and 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC and seven years under Section 364 and a fine amount of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs. 1000/- respectively.
The High Court dismissed the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- Ms. Chitrangada Rastravara, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Advs.
For the Respondents:- M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Advs.
For the Appellants :- Ms. Chitrangada Rastravara, Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Advs.
For the Respondents:- M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Sujatha Bagadhi, Advs.
Table of Contents
2. Whether the death of the main co-accused before trial entitles the remaining accused to acquittal. (Para 33 )
3. The prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including motive and the last seen theory, which the accused failed to rebut. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 34 , 35 )
4. Death of a co-accused does not affect the prosecution of another when common intention to commit the crime is established. (Para 34 , 35 )
5. Appeal dismissed and conviction confirmed. (Para 36 , 37 )
6. What is the legal significance of the last seen theory in circumstantial evidence cases?
The theory of the accused being last seen in the company of the deceased is a strong circumstance. Unless the accused can properly explain the material circumstances appearing against them, they can be held guilty of the charged offence. (Para 32 )
7. What is the impact of an accused's failure to explain incriminating circumstances during proceedings under Section 313 of the Code?
When an accused fails to explain material circumstances appearing against them during Section 313 proceedings, it strengthens the prosecution's case, particularly when the conviction is based on a chain of circumstantial evidence. (Para 28 )
8. Does the death of a main co-accused before trial entitle the remaining accused to acquittal in cases of common intention?
No. The death of a co-accused is insignificant to the prosecution of the remaining accused if it is established that they acted with a common intention and actively participated in the crime. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 )
9. Under what conditions will the court interfere with concurrent findings of lower courts under Article 136 of the Constitution?
The court is slow to interfere with concurrent findings unless it is prima facie shown that the lower courts ignored relevant evidence or that the findings are perverse or absurd. (Para 20 )
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
This appeal is filed by the accused against the final judgment and order dated 25.04.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 804 of 2006 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant(Accused) and confirmed the order dated 02.08.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal (Fast Track Court) in Sessions Case No.5 of 2006 convicting the appellant under Sections 364 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years under Section 364 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for one month and imprisonment for life under Section 302/34 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default of payment of fine, to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. The sentences would run concurrently.
2. In order to appreciate the issues arising in the case, it is necessary to set out the prosecution case in detail:
3. One person by name "Kumar" (since dead) was the uncle of a girl "Geetha". At the relevant time, Geetha was in sixth standard. Kumar was married but living separately from his wife. Kumar and Geetha were living in the one locality at a short distance. Kumar had developed liking for Geetha and wanted to marry her.
4. Murugan (father of Geetha) was not agreeable to the Kumar's proposal to marry Geetha. Murugan(Geetha's father) used to say that Kumar had already ruined the life of his wife and now he wanted to ruin his daughter's life also. Kumar, on the other hand, used to threaten Geetha that one day he would kidnap her and marry her.
5. It is the case of prosecution, that on 01.12.2002 afternoon, Kumar went to the house of Geetha and demanded "Chili" to cook mutton. At that time, Geetha was alone in the house. When Geetha refused him to give Chili, Kumar entered into the house and took Chili of his own and left the house saying that one day, he would kidnap her and rape her.
6. On the same day at around 10 P.M., Kumar along with Murugan(appellant), who is his cousin brother (his aunt's son) went to Geetha's house and invited Murugan(Geetha's father) for a drink and non-veg. dinner at his house. Murugan(Geetha's father) accepted the invitation and went along with both of them to Kumar's house.
7. When Murugan(Geetha's father) did not return home, Geetha (PW-1) alone went to Kumar's house at around 11 P.M. to find out as to why her father has not returned so far and what was he doing in Kumar's house for such a long time. On reaching there, she, however, found that trio (Kumar, Murugan and the appellant) were sitting in the room on one iron cot and were dining together. The trio told Geetha that her father - Murugan would be coming shortly. Thereafter Geetha returned to her house.
8. Since Murugan did not return home till next day morning, Geetha (PW-1) and her mother Saroja (PW-2) went early morning to Kumar's house to find out why Murugan has not returned so far to his house. The front door of the Kumar's house was closed. Both of them, therefore, pushed the front door and on opening, they found that Murugan's dead body was lying in the room near iron cot with many injuries on his body.
9. It is this incident which gave rise to filing of FIR dated 02.12.2002 (Ex-P-18) by Geetha (PW-1) in PS Jedarpalayam, which was registered as Crime No. 224 of 2002 under Sections 302/364/34 of IPC. The police then started investigation, visited the house of Kumar, prepared Mahazar (Ex.P-13), drawn rough sketch (Ex.P-19), took photographs, prepared inquest report, recorded the statements of witnesses, conducted post-mortem of the dead body (Ex.P-4) and recovered the articles (M.O. 5 and 12).
10. The police then on 03.12.2002 arrested Kumar, who confessed his guilt. His confessional statement was accordingly recorded (Ex.P-15). Thereafter the police recovered weapon used in the crime (Aruval-MO-14) and t
