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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 1051

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA ELANGAO
Shivappa @ Sivanathan
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Krisnagiri District
Crl. A. No.443 of 2007
Decided on: 09-04-2009

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:V. Raghavachari, Advocate.
For the Respondent: P. Kumaresan, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on circumstantial evidence, motive, and recovery of the murder weapon to establish the guilt of the accused, as well as the application of Exception No. 1 to Section 300 IPC.

Headnote:

Circumstantial Evidence - Murder - Section 302 IPC, Section 304 Part (I) IPC - [Motive; Evidence of P.W.3 and P.W.7; Recovery of M.O.1 rice pounder; Delay in lodging the complaint; Presence of human blood in M.O.1-Rice pounder] - The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence, motive, and the recovery of the weapon to establish the guilt of the accused. The delay in lodging the complaint was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. The court found the act of the accused falling within Exception No. 1 to Section 300 IPC and modified the conviction to Section 304 Part (I) IPC, sentencing the accused to seven years of imprisonment.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant/accused was convicted under Section 302 IPC for the murder of the deceased Ramamoorthy, who was having illicit intimacy with the appellant's wife. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of the murder weapon and the presence of human blood on it. The accused denied the charges, claiming that the deceased attempted to outrage the modesty of his wife and that she attacked the deceased in self-defense.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty based on the circumstantial evidence, motive, and recovery of the murder weapon. The delay in lodging the complaint was satisfactorily explained. The court concluded that the act of the accused fell within Exception No. 1 to Section 300 IPC and modified the conviction to Section 304 Part (I) IPC, sentencing the accused to seven years of imprisonment.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the circumstantial evidence, motive, and the accused's defense of self-defense. The delay in lodging the complaint was also raised as an issue by the defense.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the circumstantial evidence, motive, and recovery of the murder weapon to establish the guilt of the accused. The delay in lodging the complaint was satisfactorily explained by the prosecution. The court found the act of the accused falling within Exception No. 1 to Section 300 IPC and modified the conviction to Section 304 Part (I) IPC, sentencing the accused to seven years of imprisonment.

Final Decision: The court modified the conviction of the accused from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part (I) IPC and sentenced the accused to seven years of imprisonment.

Judgment :-

Ms. R. Banumathi. J,

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment in S.C. 197 of 2002 on the file of Prl. Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri convicting the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/-.

2. Case of the prosecution in nutshell are as follows:

(i) Accused is the husband of P.W.2-Suguna. Deceased Ramamoorthy is the son of P.W.1-Narasimmaiah and P.W.5-Mangammal. P.W.11-Radha is the daughter of P.W.1 and P.W.5 and 2 younger sister of deceased and P.W.4-Chellappan is husband of P.W.11. Deceased Ramamoorthy was having illicit intimacy with P.W.2-Suguna. P.W.1 had warned his son – deceased Ramamoorthy for several times and despite his warnings, deceased continued his illicit intimacy with P.W.2. About two days prior to the occurrence i.e. on 1. 2002, appellant beat his wife Suguna (P.W.2) and P.W.2 went to her monther’s house at Bairamangalam village.

(ii) On 1. 2002 at about 3.00 p.m., decease Ramamoorthy had gone to Bairamangalam accompanied by P.W.3-Anandhan. After reaching Bairamangalam, deceased told P.W.3 that he was going to see P.W.2 and asked P.W.3 to wait in the bus stop. After the deceased Ramamoorthy had left the place one Varadharajan of Kunthumaranapalli village had come there and P.W.3 was talking to Varadharajan.

(iii) On the evening of 1. 2002, P.W.7-Palaniammal who is the flower vendor went to the house of one Kavitha for giving flower and Kavitha asked her to sit for some time and P.W.7 had been talking with Kavitha, P.W.7 had seen Ramamoorthy was proceeding to the house of P.W.12-Mangathyammal who is none other than mother of P.W.2. About 10 minutes thereafter accused Shivappa also went to the house of P.W.2.

(iv) Since there was illicit intimacy between P.W.2 and deceased Ramamoorthy for quite some time, accused had been declaring in the village that he would not leave Ramamoorthy without killing. Since, accused Shivappa had gone to P.W.2’s mother’s house, fearing danger P.W.3 and his friend Varadharajan went to the house of P.W.2. P.W.3 and his friend Varadharajan saw Shivappa coming out of the house of mother of P.W.2 along with M.O.1-Rice pounder. P.W.3 and his friend Varadharajan went inside the house. They say Ramamoorthy lying on straw mat in pool of blood with blood injuries over his occipital region. Ramamoorthy sustained injuries on the right side mandible, inter-parietal region. His neck was found swollen and Ramamoorthy was found dead. P.W.3 asked Varadharajan to remain there and P.W.3 went to Kunthumaranapalli village and informed parents of the deceased Ramamoorthy.

(iv) P.Ws. 1, 3, 4, 10 and 11 went to the house of P.W.12 and saw the dead body of the deceased. P.W.1 accompanied by his son P.W.4 went to Kelamangalam police station and lodged Exhibit P-1-Complaint. On the basis of which a case was registered in Cr. No. 7/2002 under Section 302 IPC (Exhibit P-15).

(vi) P.W.21- Inspector of Police had taken up investigation. He inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Exhibit P-5-Obsrvation Mahazar and also Exhibit P-16-Rough plan. He has collected blood stained earth and sample earth and also seized M.O.5-Straw mat under Exhibit P-6-Seizure Mahazar. P.W.21 held Inquest in the presence of panchayatars and Exhibit P-17 is the inquest report.

(vii) After Inquest, body was sent for post-mortem. P.W.19-Dr. D.V. Gandhi had conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased Ramamoorthy. P.W.19 had noticed (i) lacerated cut injury on the right side mandible near chin with bleeding and clots; (ii) lacerated wound with bleeding and clot near left angle of mouth; (iii) lacerated cut injury on the inter-parietal region with bleeding and clot and (iv) contused discolouration of skin on the left side of neck. Opining that death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to injury of head and base of skull, P.W.19 issued Exhibit P-14-Post-mortem certificate. After Post Mortem, Blood stained clothes were seized from the

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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