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

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. Sen and Lalit Mohan Sharma, JJ.
Moorthy - Appellant
versus
State of Tamil Nadu - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 317 of 1988
Decided on 9-5-1988
Case referred:
Srirangan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1978)2 SCR 270.
Mr. D.R. Lalit Senior Advocate with Mr. V. Krishnamurthy and Mr. V. Balachandran, Advocates-For the Appellant.
Mr. A.V. Rangam, Advocate-For the Respondent.

IMPORTANT POINT
The accused convicted under section 302 of Indian Penal Code should be spared from the extreme penalty of death when he committed double murder when agitated on account of circumstances upsetting his mental condition.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 307 - Conviction for the offences under - Sentence of death – Limited special leave to appeal on the question of sentence-Double murder of a woman and her 12-year old son-Attempt to kill her daughter-Plea of insanity rejected - Appellant, 20 years of age was employed in the hospital where the husband of deceased was posted - Illicit relationship between the parties-A sudden de6ant attitude of deceased towards appellant - Attack by knife when deceased was sleeping in her bedroom - Appellant stopped attacking when ordered by a police constable living in the neighborhood - No attempt to escape - Appellant committed this murder after seeing a, late night movie showing murder of four women-The sentence of death passed should be converted to imprisonment for life. (Paras 8 and 9)

       Result-

       Appeal allowed partly while making some observations regarding the vicious effect of films picturising violence in detail.

       

JUDGMENT

L.M. Sharma, J -The appellant was convicted by the trial court for double murder of a woman, Jayasambal by name and her son Vijay Anand, and was sentenced to death. He was further convicted under section 307, I.P.C. for attempting to kill Vijay Anand's sister Kavitha Priyadarsini and for house trespass in order to commit the aforesaid offences, and was sentenced to life imprisonment under each of the two counts. His appeal before the Madras High Court was dismissed and the sentence of death confirmed. The present Special Leave Petition was filed against this judgment.

2. At the preliminary hearing we were satisfied that the appel1ant was rightly convicted as mentioned earlier. We, however, directed notice to be issued on the question of sentence. Accordingly, limited special leave is granted.

3. According to the case of the prosecution, Dr. Manickasamy (P.W. 1), the husband of the deceased Jayasambal and fathers of deceased Vijay Anand, was a doctor working in the Government Hospital at Sadras and the appellant as a Leprosy Inspector under him. The doctor had taken a second wife whom he was keeping in another house with their 3 children. The appellant developed close association with the doctor's family and became intimate with Jayasambal. The daughter Kavitha Priyadarsini (P.W. 2), one day in 1984, found to her shock, her mother Jayasambal and the appellant in a compromising position, and raised a stiff protest with her mother. Jayasambal attempted to justify her romance on the ground that the doctor P.W. 1 was also having two women in his life. When Kavitha threatened that she would report the matter to her father, she (Jayasambal) relented and agreed to terminate the illicit relationship on which Kavitha promised silence. Thus forced by her daughter, Jayasambal attempted to avoid the company of the appellant and to repel his advances. In the meantime the family had changed its residence and the younger sister of Jayasambal joined them and started living with them. She was examined in the case as P.W.3.

4. On 20-7-1985 the appellant went to a late night cinema show with his friend P.W. 5. The film contained murder scenes of four women. When the appellant came out of the cinema hall after midnight he told his friend that he would take revenge for the betrayal by a lady. He did not give any detail. P.W. 5 stated at the trial that after dropping him at the dispensary, where he lived, the appellant left by a bicycle; and he learnt the next morning about the death of Jayasambal.

5. According to the further prosecution story the appellant knocked the door of P.W. 1 soon thereafter. The doctor came out of his house and the appellant suddenly rushed into his bed room, locked the door from inside and attacked Jayasambal with a knife. The boy Vijay Anand aged about 12 years, got up and attempted to intervene and was killed. His elder sister Kavitha (P.W. 2) a1so became a victim and suffered grievous injury. The doctor, P.W. 1, and Jayasambals younger sister (P.W. 3) raised shouts, which attracted P.W. 16, a Police Inspector living in the neighbourhood. The Police Inspector saw the accused through the window with a knife in his hand and ordered him to stop and to open the door. The appellant obeyed.

6. Both the trial court and the High Court, on appeal, closely examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecution story was correct. A plea of insanity under section 84, I.P.C. taken on behalf of the accused was rejected. We have examined the evidence and the circumstances and are in agreement with the view of the High Court.

7. However, the question is whether the courts below were right in imposing death penalty on the appellant or whether the appropriate sentence would be imprisonment for life. Prima facie the case appears to be a very serious one where two persons were killed and a third one seriously injured. The death of a 12 year boy trying to save his mother and the serious injury to his elder sister leav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

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