BABU S/O RAVEENDRAN versus BABU S/O BAHULEYAN AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 389 · Decided: 11-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

BABU S/O RA VEENDRAN 
A 
v. 
BABU S/O BAHULEY AN AND ANR. 
AUGUST 11, 2003. 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Section 302: 
Conviction-On basis of circum~tantial evidence-Acquittal by High. 
Court-Justification of-Held: When all the circumstantial evidence taken C 
together cumulatively lead and unerringly pointing to the guilt of the accused, 
conviction justified 
Death sentence-Award of-Justification of-Held: Gruesome murder. 
committed but not gravest case of extreme culpability, circumstances of D 
offenders and also crime not such life imprisonment not an inadequate 
punishment and also balance between aggravating and mitigating 
circumstances having been drawn, thus imposition of death sentence does not 
arise-Also the case not falling within the ambit of rarest of rare cases-
Hence, death sentence modified to life imprisonment. 
According to the prosecution, marriage of the parties was solemnised. 
Thereafter, the wife came to know about the extra-marital affair cf her 
husband. She kept her husband at bay on the bridal night and also on the 
next day. Accused-husband became revengeful on account of his failure 
E 
to accomplish copulation with his wife and as a result strangulated and 
killed her and then dumped her in an unused well. At 2.30 a.m. the F 
husband woke the inmates of the house and disclosed that his wife was 
missing. After search the body of the deceased was found in a well about 
17 metres away from house. Brother of the deceased-wife lodged FIR. The 
husband was charged with murder of his wife. Trial Judge convicted the 
accused-husband under Section 302 IPC and imposed death sentence. High G 
Court set aside the conviction and sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the circumstantial evidence unerringly 
point to the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt; and that the 
389 
H 
390 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2003) SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A High Court erred in holding that the testimony of father of the accused 
was a mistake. 
B 
Respondents contended that circumstantial evidence do not lead to 
the guilt of the accused; and that there is no direct evidence, thus the 
acquittal recorded by the High Court may not be disturbed. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the instant case, all the circumstantial evidence, taken 
together cumulatively lead and unerringly point only to the guilt of the 
accused. Thus the order of the High Court acquitting the accused is set 
C aside. f 398-G, HJ 
2.1. The finding of High Court that there was a tear of hymen in 
the 5'0 clock position shows the couple had sexual consummation is not 
based on totality of appreciation of evidence of the doctor who conducted 
D autopsy. The doctor stated that there were signs of an attempted sexual 
intercourse which means that the accused was making an attempt to have 
sexual intercourse with the deceased and the deceased was resisting the 
attempt. Also there is a wavering stand of the accused as to whether he 
did not have sexual intercourse with the deceased prior to her death. 
Further, the report of chemical examination that vaginal smear and swab 
E did not show the presence of semen and spermatozoa confirmed the 
absence of complete sexual intercourse. Thus, there is every possibility that 
the accused was pressing the throat of the deceased and at the same time 
was trying to have sexual intercourse with her and in the process the 
tearing of hymen in the 5'0 clock position could have occurred but without 
consummation. (396-B, F) 
F 
Black's law Dictionary,' Sixth Edition, referred to. 
2.2. With regard to three injuries found on the neck of the deceased 
by the doctor, there is every possibility that the accused applied pressure 
on the neck of the deceased in an excess of sadism to frighten or torment 
G the deceased or to overcome resistance. [396-G) 
2.3. High Court was of the view that mere recovery of lungi from 
the bedroom of the accused is of no consequence, as lungi is commonly 
worn in domestic life and it is not a strange commodity in a bedroom of 
H any person. High Court failed to notice that PW-3 had stated that her 
.... 
BABU S/O RA VEENDRAN v. BABU S/O BAHULEYAN 
391 
husband saw the lungi in the well on the eastern side of the house and A 
they saw accused's wife was lying dead in that. It is also in the evidence 
of PW-11 that he took into custody the cloths on the dead body. The lungi 
was lying in the well in which the body was lying and th

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