ARUMUGAM versus THE STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 87 · Decided: 28-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 87 
ARUMUGAM 
v. 
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS INSPECTOR OF 
POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 515 of 2007) 
JULY 28, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
A 
8 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder - Son committing 
murder of step mother - Accused-son made extra judicial C 
confession to his step sister and, thereafter, to Village 
Administrative Officer in a short while - Recovery of rope used 
for strangulation - Conviction and sentence u/s. 302 by courts 
below - Justification of - Held: Justified - Accused after 
making extra judicial confession did not try to run away - He o 
was annoyed with the mother as he suspected her of being of 
low character - Medical evidence duly supported the ocular 
evidence - Father and brother-in-law of the accused having 
turned hostile would not affect the prosecution case. 
Accordicg to the prosecution case, the appellant E 
committed the murder of S-step mother. He told PW5-step 
sister that he had strangled and killed S. Thereafter, the 
appellant made an extra-judicial confession to PW1-
Village Administrative Officer. The statement was 
recorded in writing and FIR was registered. On basis of F 
the statement, rope used for strangulating the deceased 
was recovered. The post mortem examination was carried 
out. The doctor opined that the death was on account of 
asphyxia due to strangulation. The trial court convicted 
and sentenced the appellant for life uls. 302 IPC. The High G 
Court upheld the order. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 An extra-judicial confession is often called 
87 
H 
88 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A a weak type of evidence but in the instant case it has 
certain distinctive features. It is of significance that the 
appellant had made the extra-judicial confession to PW5 
and thereafter to PW1 within a very short time and had 
not attempted to run away and he had been handed over 
B to the police by PW1 at about 6 p.m. at the time when the 
FIR had been recorded. PW5 also admitted in her 
statement that the appellant was annoyed with the 
deceased as he suspected her of being of low character 
and an embarrassment to him and he had often asked her 
c to mend her behaviour to which she had responded that 
she would live life on her terms and it was not his 
business to interfere in her life. Appellant's father-PW4 
and brother-in-law-PW3 had turned hostile but their 
evidence would have been merely to the effect that the 
0 
appellant had found fault in the deceased's behaviour and 
in the background of the statement of PW 5 that the 
appellant was indeed annoyed with her mother, the 
factum of PWs.4 and 3 having turned hostile would not 
adversely affect the prosecution story. [Para 7] [92-D-H; 
E 93-A] 
1.2 The medical evidence far from contradicting the 
ocular evidence clearly supports it. It has been submitted 
that body was in a decomposed state on the 20th March 
2000 at 4 p.m. when it was subjected to the post mortem 
F examination which indicated that the incident must have 
happened much before 11 a.m. There is a basic flaw in 
this evidence. The Post mortem certificate shows that the 
post mortem had commenced at 4 p.m. and the finding 
was of a fracture in the body of the thyroid bone and that 
G the deceased would appear to have died due to 
strangulation 27 to 30 hours prior to the commencement 
of the post-mortem. Thus, it cannot be said that the death 
had occurred prior to 11 a.m. on the 19th of March. The 
cause of death also reveals that the death had been 
H caused by strangulation with a rope as there was ligature 
ARUMUGAM v. STATE REPRESENTED BY ITS 
89 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
mark on the neck. It has been submitted that as per the 
A 
evidence of PW5 the deceased was a healthy and strong 
woman and was perhaps physically stronger than the 
appellant and it would have been impossible for the 
appellant to have strangulated her, cannot be accepted. 
It is clear from the evidence that the appellant had 
B 
prepared well for the day and had apparently hidden the 
rope in the field much earlier. It looks, therefore, that the 
deceased, though a strong woman, had been 
overwhelmed by a sudden attack and strangulated with 
the rope, as no other injuries which could show signs of c 
a struggle, were found on the dead body. Thus, the 
findings of the High Court and the trial court are upheld. 
[Paras 8 and 9] [93-B-H] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 515 of 2

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.