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

2008 Supreme(SC) 807

2008(4) Supreme 25
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Lokeshwar Singh Panta, JJ.
Krishnan — Petitioner
versus
State represented by Inspector of Police — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 841 of 2008
Decided on : 08-05-2008

IMPORTANT POINT
In the absence of any cogent, believable and satisfactory evidence, an accused cannot be held guilty of murder only on hypothesis and suspicion.

Headnote:(a) Criminal Trial – Circumstantial evidence – Tests which must be satisfied by circumstantial evidence; and the conditions precedent which must be fully established before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence reiterated. (Para 13)

        (1982)2 SCC 351: AIR 1982 SC 1157; (1981)1 SCC 511: AIR 1981 SC 738; (1982)3 SCC 462: AIR 1983 SC 61; (1983)2 SCC 330: AIR 1983 SC 446; 1986 Suppl. SCC 676: AIR 1987 SC 1921; (1987)1 SCC 1: AIR 1987 SC 350; AIR 1952 SC 3443; (1984) 4 SCC 116: AIR 1984 SC 1622; (1996)10 SCC 193; (2004)4 SCC 236 – Relied upon.

        (b) Criminal Trial – Conviction – In the absence of any cogent, believable and satisfactory evidence, an accused cannot be held guilty of murder only on hypothesis and suspicion. (Para 19)

        (c) Criminal Trial – Benefit of doubt – When on the basis of the evidence appearing on record, two views are possible, accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. (Para 20)

       Facts of the case:

        1. Siddiq (P.W.-1) was residing with his wife Rasitha Begum, sisters - Amsath (Hamsath) Begum, Sabeetha Begum (P.W.-4), Faritha Begum (P.W.-5) and brother Aliyar in a rental house at Mehbobapalayam, Minachipuram, Karaikudi. P.W.-1 was working as a Cleaner in Kalakai Vadivel Murugan Lorry. On the southern side of the house of P.W.-1, Muthuraman (A-3), an auto-driver, and his wife Tamilarasi (A-2) were residing.

        2. The family members of P.W.-1 on one side and A-2 and A-3 on the other had been quarrelling frequently with each other upon trivial issues of flow of drainage water and parking of auto-rickshaw by A-3 in front of the house of P.W.-1.

        3. Since morning hours of 28.03.1995 Rasitha Begum was missing from the house. One Smt. Mumtaz (P.W.-3) – a neighbour, told him that on 28.03.1995 at about 10:30 a.m., she saw Rashita Begum and A-2 were quarrelling with each other, she also disclosed that on 29th morning she along with Faritha Begum (P.W.-5), Fathima Beevi, and Rakhumat Biwi had noticed Rasitha Begum lying on the floor of their house and her both legs and hands were tied.

        4. The learned Sessions Judge held A-1 and A-2 guilty of the murder of Rasitha Begum and, accordingly, sentenced them imprisonment for life whereas they were acquitted under Section 380, IPC. A-3 has been acquitted for offence under Section 414 of the IPC for lack of cogent and convincing evidence against him.

        5. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both the appeals by common order and confirmed the conviction and sentence imposed upon A-1 and A-2 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

       Finding of the Court :

        Prosecution has failed to prove its case.

       Result : Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. —

1. Leave granted.

2. Krishnan has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 07.02.2006 passed by the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 826/1996, confirming the conviction and sentence for life in respect of the offence committed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code [for short “the IPC”] in Sessions Case No. 41/1996 dated 30.08.1996 awarded by the learned Sessions Judge, Sivaganga.

3. Three accused - Krishnan [A-1], Tamilarasi [A-2] and her husband Muthuraman [A-3] were charged in Sessions Case No. 41/1996 on the file of the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Sivaganga. A-1 and A-2 were tried under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 380 of the IPC. A- 3 was tried under Section 414 of the IPC. The learned trial Judge held A-1 and A-2 guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. All the accused were acquitted of the charges under Sections 380 and 414 of the IPC. A-1 challenged his conviction and sentence before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 816/1996 whereas A-2 preferred Criminal Appeal No. 249/1998.

4. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is as under :-

Siddiq (P.W.-1) was residing with his wife Rasitha Begum, sisters - Amsath (Hamsath) Begum, Sabeetha Begum (P.W.-4), Faritha Begum (P.W.-5) and brother Aliyar in a rental house at Mehbobapalayam, Minachipuram, Karaikudi. P.W.-1 is working as a Cleaner in Kalakai Vadivel Murugan Lorry. On the southern side of the house of P.W.-1, Muthuraman (A-3), an auto-driver, and his wife Tamilarasi (A-2) are residing. It is the case of the prosecution that the family members of P.W.-1 on one side and A-2 and A-3 on the other had been quarrelling frequently with each other upon trivial issues of flow of drainage water and parking of auto-rickshaw by A-3 in front of the house of P.W.-1. On 28.03.1995 at about 9:45 p.m., P.W.-4 went to the lorry shed where P.W.-1 is working and informed the latter that since morning hours of 28.03.1995 Rasitha Begum was missing from the house. He along with P.W.-4 came to his house at about 11:00 p.m. and started enquiring the whereabouts of his wife in the neighbourhood, but he could not locate her. Later on, Amsath, the second sister of P.W.-1, told him that in the morning at about 9:30 a.m. her sister-in-law (Rasitha Begum) had gone to the shop of a tailor master to get her blouse from him and at that time she was wearing a new saree. P.W.-1 went in search of Rasitha Begum to the shop of tailor master, Katinivaasal, New Road, and house of his in-laws at Devakotai, but she could not be located at any place. On 29.03.1995 at about 9:30 a.m., P.W.-1 returned home and again made an enquiry from Smt. Mumtaz (P.W.-3) - a neighbour, in regard to the reason of his wife missing from the house. P.W.-3 alleged to have told him that on 28.03.1995 at about 10:30 a.m., she saw Rashita Begum and A-2 were quarrelling with each other, but she did not think it proper to intervene since it was practically their daily habits to enter into heated exchanges upon petty issues. P.W.-3 also disclosed that on 29th morning when she along with Faritha Begum (P.W.-5), Fathima Beevi, and Rakhumat Biwi had peeped through the eastern side window of the house of A-2 and A-3, they could notice Rasitha Begum lying on the floor of their house and her both legs and hands were tied. They also noticed one rice bag and some household materials found placed upon her dead body. Thereafter, P.W.-1 went to the Police Station and lodged complaint [Ex. P-1], on the basis of which Sub-Inspector Murugan (P.W.-17) registered Crime No. 145/95 [Ex. P-14] under Section 302, IPC in Karaikudi (North) Police Station.

5. Balakrishnan (P.W.-18), Inspector of the Police Station, went to the spot of incident and prepared Mahazar [Ex. P-4] and Death Investigation Report [Ex. P-15] in the presence of

















































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