KRISHNAN @ RAMASAMY & ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2014] 9 S.C.R. 340 · Decided: 01-07-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. J. MUKHOPADHAYA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2014] 9 S.C.R. 340 
KRISHNAN @ RAMASAMY & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
(Crimnal Appeal No. 512 of 2010) 
JULY 01, 2014 
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND 
DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, ·1860: ss.364, 302, 201 r/w s.34- Conviction 
C based on circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - PW-
1, mother of victim-deceased lodged FIR alleging that seven 
days back, accused persons picked up her son, beat him up 
and took him away and her son did not return home after that 
day - Accused no. 3 was arrested who took the police to the 
D borewell where the dead body of deceased was hidden -
Courts below convicted accused no. 1 to 3 but acquitted 
• 
accused no.4 and 5 -
On appeal, held: As per PW-1, 
deceased was last seen in temple in the company of accused 
Nos. 1 to 4 - As per PW-2, maternal aunt of the deceased, 
E 
deceased was last seen in the Police Station along with 
accused no. 1, who had brought the deceased there. -
Prosecution failed to explain the statement given by PW-2 · 
during her cross-examination wherein she stated that when 
she asked the Police about the deceased, they replied that ; 
F 
the deceased was not handed over to them - Therefore, 
presence of PW-2 at the scene of occurrence was doubtful - . 
She being the highly interested witness and in view of 
contradictions, her statement cannot be relied upon - Further, 
if dead body was recovered at the instance of accused No.3, 
on that basis itself accused nos. 1 and 2 cannot be convicted 
G 
- If accused no.4 was also last seen with deceased along with 
accused nos. 1 to 3, trial court having given benefit of doubt 
to accused no.4, there is no reason why same benefit be not 
given to accused Nos. 1 to 3 - Conviction cannot be based 
H 
340 
KRISHNAN@ RAMASAMY v. STATE OF TAMIL 
341 
. 
NADU 
only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased 
A 
- There was unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR 
- The body of the deceased was taken from the borewell by 
the fire service personnel after more that) seven days - There 
was no other positive material to show that the deceased was 
last seen together with the accused and during intervening 
B 
period of seven days there was nobody in contact with the 
deceased - High Court erred in affirming the order of 
conviction passed by the trial court 
Evidence: Testimony qfaccomplice - Held: Cannot be 
C 
used against another accused - Penal Code, 1860: ss.364, 
302, 201 rlw s.34. 
The prosecution case was that accused no. 1 and his 
wife accused no. 5 were annoyed with the victim-
deceased as the deceased had been in love with their D 
daughter and expressed his love to her. On account of 
this, the deceased was driven out of the village. On the 
fateful day, the deceased visited the village for the 
festival. At about 6.30 P.M., when the deceased was with 
his friends, accused no. 1, 2, 3 and 5 came there and took 
E 
the deceased to a place near temple and attacked him. 
Later at 12 midnight, accused no. 1 and 2 strangulated 
him to death. Thereafter, accused 1, 2 and 3 hid the dead 
body into a borewell. As the deceased did not return 
home, after about 6 days, the mother of the deceased, 
F 
PW-1 made a complaint under Section 365, IPC. Accused 
no. 3 was arrested who took the police to the borewell 
, where the dead body of the deceased was hidden. The 
trial court convicted accused no. 1 to 3 under Sections 
364, 302_ and 201 IPC r/w section 34 IPC but acquitted 
G 
accused no. 4 and 5. The High Court dismissed the 
appeal by accused no. 1 to 3. The instant appeal was filed 
challenging the order of the High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1. The judgment passed by the trial court as 
affirmed by the High Court depicted that the prosecution 
case rested only upon the cir~umstantial evidence. The 
Court mainly relied upon the evidence of PW-1, mother 
of the deceased, confession of accused No.3 and the 
B postmortem report. The evidence of PW-1 was to the 
effect that her son was said to have given ii flower to the 
daughter of accused No.1 and since accused No.1 was 
very much annoyed with her son, she sent her son to 
Kerala for employment in order to save him from the · 
c accused. After sometime, the deceased had come to his 
native village for celebrating the Festival and when he 
was talking to his friends on one evening, he was taken 
by accused Nos. 1 to 4 for questioning and on hearing 
the same PW-1 went
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.