LexGOVINDASWAMY versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2016] 9 S.C.R. 342 GOVINDASWAMY v. STATE OF KERALA CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1584-1585 OF 2014 SEPTEMBER 15,2016 (RANJAN GOGOi, PRAFULLA C. PANT AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.J Penal Code,1860 - ss.302 & 376 - Conviction of appellant- accused uls. 302 - If justified - Appellant convicted for raping and murdering the victim by dropping/pushing her out of the running train - As per medical evidence, the death of deceased was occasioned by a combination of injury no. 1 and 2 and complications arising therefrom including a~piration of blood into air passages resulting in anoxic brain damage on account of the deceased having D been kept in a supine position for purpose of sexual assault - Held: Appellant is liable for injury no. 1 however not for injury no.2 which was occasioned by the fall of deceased from the running train as in terms of evidence of witnesses the deceased herself jumped out of the train - To hold an accused liable uls. 302 an intention to cause death or knowledge, is required on his part, that his act was likely E to cause death - However, as deposed by the Doctor, the illlention of the appellant in keeping the deceased in a supine position was only for the purpose of sexual assault - Requisite knowledge that in the circumstances such an act may cause death, also cannot be attributed to the appellant - Hence, offence uls. 302 not made out F against appellant - Conviction u/s. 302 set aside and altered to one u/s. 325 along with RI for 7 years - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 3941 3971447. Penal Code, 1860 - s.376 - Rape - As per the DNA typing, the seminal stain on victim '.1· vaginal swab and vaginal smear G belonged to the appellant- Fur1he1; blood of victim found in clothing of the appellant, i.e. pants. underwear and shirt - Offence committed on deceased after she suffered extreme injuries occassioned by fall from running train - Held: There can be no manner of doubt that it is the appellant who had committed the o,ffence uls. 376 in a most brutal and grotesque manner - Conviction of appellant confirmed H uls.376 and hence life sentencg awarded by trial court and 342 GOVINDASWAMY v. STATE OF KERALA 343 confirmed by High Court, upheld. A Partly allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Item l(a) and 2(b) contained the vagina swabs of the victim whereas Item 2(a) is vaginal smear collected from the victim. Item 3(a) is a cut open garment (M.0.1) and Item 18 is a torrn lunky (M.0.5). Item No.8 is the blood sample of the B accused. According to P.W. 70 (DNA expert) as per the DNA typing the seminal stains on Item No. 1(1), 2(a), 2(b), 3(a) and 18 belonged to the accused to whom the blood sample in Item No.8 belongs. (Para 12][349-H; 350-A-B] 1.2 So far as the offence under Section 376 IPC is concerned, C from a consideration of postmortem report (Exhibit P-69), D.N.A. Profile (Exhibit P-2) and the evidence of P.W. 64 (Doctor) and P.W. 70, there can be no manner of doubt that it is the accused appellant who had committed the said offence. The D.N.A. profile clinches the issue and makes the liability of the accused explicit D leaving no scope for any doubt. The conviction of the accused is confirmed under Section 376 IPC. Having regard to the fact that the said offence was committed on the deceased who had already suffered extreme injuries on her body, it is held that not only the offence under Section 376 IPC was committed by the accused, the same was so committed in a most brutal and grotesque manner E justifying the imposition oflife sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court and confirmed by the High Court. (Para 13)(350-C-E) 2.1 The death of the deceased was occasioned by a combination of injury nos.I and 2, and complications arising therefrom including aspiration of blood into the air passages F resulting in anoxic brain damage. The same, in the opinion of P. W.64, had occurred due to the fact that the deceased was kept in a supine position for the purpose of sexual assault. However, so far as injury no.2 is concerned, unless the fall from the train can be ascribed to the accused on the basis of the cogent and G reliable evidence, meaning thereby, that the accused had pushed the deceased out of the train and the possibility of the deceased herself jumping out of train is ruled out, the liability of the accused for the said injury may not necessary follow. It cannot be ignored that as per evidence of P.W 4 and P.W 40 in this r
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.