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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1688

High Court of Judicature at Madras
K.N. BASHA & P. DEVADASS
Kumi @ Kumaran & Another
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police, Puducherry
Crl.A.No. 627 of 2011
Decided on: 19-04-2013

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:V. Gopinath, Senior Counsel for G. Saravanan, L. Mahendran, Advocates.
For the Respondent: M.R. Thangavelu, Addl. Public Prosecutor ((Puducherry).

The main legal point established in the judgment is that charges must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts, and suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute legal proof.

Headnote:

MURDER FOR GAIN - CRIMINAL LAW - [IPC 454, IPC 392, IPC 302 r/w 34] - The judgment discusses the prosecution's case of murder for gain, based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, test identification parade, entry in the note book, stay in the hotel, fingerprint evidence, and recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The court critically analyzes each circumstance and concludes that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the murder of the deceased for gain, with the prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence to implicate the accused.

Finding of the Court:

The court critically analyzed the circumstantial evidence and found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Issues: The issues revolve around the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that suspicion, however strong, cannot be a substitute for legal proof, and charges must be proved beyond all reasonable doubts.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal is allowed, the appellants are acquitted, and the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court are set aside.

JUDGMENT

P. Devadass, J.

THE APPELLANTS:


A-1 Kumi @ Kumaran and A-2 Senba @ Senbagasri Kumar are challenging their conviction and sentence in the Sessions Case in S.C.No.58 of 2007 rendered by the learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry.

CONVICTION AND SENTENCES:

2. They were convicted and sentenced as under:

Accused Conviction Sentence

A.1 (i) 454 IPC (i) 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine

Rs.5,000/-, in default, 1 year simple Imprisonment.

(ii) 392 IPC (ii) 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine

Rs.5,000/-, in default, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.

(iii) 302 IPC (iii) Life and fine Rs.5,000/-

r/w 34 IPC and in default, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.

A.2 (i) 454 IPC (i) 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine

Rs.5,000/-, in default, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.

(ii) 392 IPC (ii) 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine

Rs.5,000/-, in default, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.

(iii) 302 IPC (iii) Life and fine Rs.5,000/-

r/w 34 IPC and in default, 1 year Simple Imprisonment.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

PROSECUTION CASE :

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-

(1) P.W.1 Boopathy and deceased Manimozhi are spouses. Their daughter is P.W.2 Anuja. They were residing at Door No.30-A, East Coast Road, Chinnakalapet, Puducherry.

(2) P.W.1 is a Company Secretary in a Company in Puducherry. Then P.W.2 was studying VIII Standard in Patrick School, Puducherry. Manimozhi was running Venkateswara Internet Centre and STD Booth in her house. P.W.3, Muthamizh Selvan, lecturer in S.R.M. College, Kattankulathur, Chennai is their family friend. Whenever he visits Puducherry for paper correction work, he used to stay in their house.

(3) On a day, near the deceased's house, in a motor bike accident, A-2 got injured. He introduced himself as Dheena @ Dinesh to the deceased. She gave him first aid. In 2001, October, on a day, A-1 and A-2 visited her house. At about 6.30 p.m., the deceased introduced A-2 to P.W.1. A-2 promised a gift to P.W.2.

(4) M.O.4, a small female statue, kept in the front portion of P.W.17 Raveena's Restaurant, in Mission Street, Puducherry was missing.

(5) Subsequently, the accused gave M.O.4 statue to P.W.2. Accused frequented Venkateswara internet centre. P.W.2 created email I.D for them. In Ex.P.2 telephone diary, P.W.2 entered (Ex.P.9) A-2 Dinesh's cell phone No.9840124473.

(6) On 14.2.2002, P.W.23 Umapathy, Manager, 'Aditya Hotel', in Kamarajar Salai, Puducherry booked a room for A-1. A-1 signed in the Hotel Receipt Book (See Ex.Ps.31 to 35). A-2 was also with him. In the evening, over phone, A-1 informed P.W.23 that as he intend to vacate the room, make ready the bill. Thereafter, the room was vacated.

(7) The deceased maintained Ex.P.3 long size Note Book. In this, she used to enter the date, time and name of persons visiting her internet centre. On 14.2.2002, at 4.40 p.m., the deceased made entry (Ex.P.5) in the said note book that Dheena(A1) visited the internet centre.

(8) On 14.2.2002, P.W.3 was staying in deceased's house. At about 8 a.m., P.W.1 left the house with P.W.2. He left her in the school and gone to Hotel Annamalai in Puducherry to attend a seminar. At about 10 a.m., P.W.3 also left the house for Pondicherry University for paper correction work.

(9) At about 4.30 p.m., P.W.3 returned to deceased's house. Then, the deceased was talking with A-1. She introduced him to P.W.3. Within few minutes, A-2 came from the internet centre. The deceased gave them advice. Thereafter, they left for Kalapet. The deceased told P.W.3 that they are like her brothers and they are residing in Chennai. After shutting down the computer in the internet centre, the deceased went upstairs to water the plants.

(10) At about 5.25 p.m., P.W.15, Karpagam came to the STD booth in the deceased's house. Made call. Enquired about the charges. She had seen A-2. She placed Rs.2 and left. Thereafter, A-1 and A-2 came to the Internet centre. A-2 told P.W.3 that the internet







































































































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