Back
Judges : GOVINDA PILLAI,JOSEPH
Retnakaran - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Case No : Crl. A. No. 72, 83 of 1954
Decided On : 07/30/1954
Advocates Appeared :
G. Ramachandran Nair; For Appellants R. Narayana Pillai; For State
Accused - Criminal Law - Ss.364, 302, 114 IPC - The court discussed the legal provisions of Ss.364, 302, and 114 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and their interpretations. The court emphasized the importance of corroborating confessional statements with independent evidence and highlighted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., and Bhuboni Sahu v. The King. The court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence and corroborated confessional statements.
Fact of the Case:
The 1st accused was convicted under Ss.364 and 302 read with S. 114 IPC and was sentenced to transportation for life and to a fine of Rs. 50 under S. 302/114 and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to a fine of Rs. 25 under S. 364 IPC. The 2nd accused was convicted under Ss. 302 and 364 read with S. 114 IPC and sentenced to transportation for life and to a fine of Rs. 50 under S. 302 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs. 25 under S. 364 read with S. 114 IPC. The prosecution case against the two accused was that they murdered Sumathi, who was pregnant with the 1st accused's child, and attempted to procure an abortion.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's false statements, their presence near the scene of the crime, and the recovery of the murder weapon. The court also considered the confessional statements, which were retracted, and held that they were corroborated by independent evidence. The court confirmed the conviction and sentences of the accused, except for the fine, which was set aside.
Issues: The main issue was the guilt of the accused in the murder of Sumathi. The court considered the admissibility and reliability of confessional statements, the importance of corroborating confessions with independent evidence, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of corroborating confessional statements with independent evidence and highlighted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Kashmira Singh v. State of M.P., and Bhuboni Sahu v. The King. The court found the accused guilty based on circumstantial evidence and corroborated confessional statements.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction and sentences of the accused, except for the fine, which was set aside. The sentences passed on accused 1 and 2 were to run concurrently. Both the appeals were dismissed.
1. Accused 1 and 2 are the appellants. The 1st accused was convicted under Ss.364 and 302 read with S. 114 IPC and was sentenced to transportation for life and to a fine of Rs. 50 under S. 302/114 and to rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to a fine of Rs. 25 under S. 364 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently. The 2nd accused was convicted under Ss. 302 and 364 read with S. 114 IPC and sentenced to transportation for life and to a fine of Rs. 50 under S. 302 IPC, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to a fine of Rs. 25 under S. 364 read with S. 114 IPC. These sentences also were to run concurrently.
2. The prosecution case against the two accused was as follows:- Sumathi, the unmarried daughter of PW.1, was seduced by the 1st accused who was a neighbour of hers and the son of a rich man of the locality. As a result of this she got pregnant. The 1st accused with the help of the 2nd accused, a neighbour and companion, attempted to procurean abortion. But this failed. The 1st accused had given Sumathi all sorts of hopes and promised to accept her as his wife. But when the attempt to bring about the abortion failed he began to back out. By Makaram 1128, Sumathi had advanced six months in pregnancy and this fact began to gain currency in the locality. Sumathi herself mentioned this to some of her friends and neighbours and also the fact that the 1st accused was responsible for the same. She also stated that if the 1st accused refused to accept her as his wife she would go to his house and commit suicide by hanging. The news that Sumathi was pregnant came to the notice of her father PW.1. Though Sumathi had denied this to her mother, the parents were able to ascertain the fact through Sumathi's friends, particularly PW. 5, who was her uncle's daughter. Out of shame PW.1 left the house and this aggravated the feelings of Sumathi. The 1st accused also was absent from the locality as he had arranged to stage a drama in a place called Thittuvila a few miles distant from his house. When the 1st accused was not to be seen for a number of days Sumathi began to enquire about his whereabouts. She also told a neighbour PW.10 who was an employee in the shop conducted by PW.11 that she would like to see the 1st accused. PW.10 mentioned this to PW.11. The shop of PW.11 was near the Karottu junction on the M.C. Road. Sumathi's house was about a mile to the east of that junction. When the 1st accused returned from Thittuvila, he came to know of the developments and also of Sumathi's talk with PW.10. On 12.6.1128 corresponding to 25th January 1953, the 1st accused met Sumathi on his way to Karottu junction. He consoled her and promised to take her to a separate house which he had arranged for her stay. This was a deliberate misrepresentation made to decoy her to a distant and secret place for the purpose of putting an end to her life. On the 27th January the 1st accused again met Sumathi and asked her to be ready to go to her new house and wait for him for the purpose at the secret place near her house. Accordingly, she left her house in the evening saying that she was going to her mother's elder sisters house. She waited for the 1st accused at the appointed place. At about 8 PM accused 1 and 2 came and took her to the forest reserve near the place called Mylamoodu (ssaeagSv) and murdered her there. Mylamoodu is 101/2 miles away from Karottu junction and 21/4 miles away from Palode. There is a road joining Karottu junction and Palode, and Kallara and Pangode are important places on the way. From Pangode to Palode is the forest reserve on either side of the road. At Mylamoodu there is a bridge and near that a foot-path that goes into the interior of the forest. They took her along the footpath to a distance of about 100 feet and from there to a spot about 40 feet to the south east. When they reached the spot Sumathi's hands were tied behind her with her upper cloth. The 1st accused then throtled her and she
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
