MOORTHY versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1988] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 222 · Decided: 09-05-1988 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
MOOR THY 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
MAY 9, 1988 
[A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302-Appellant convicted of 
murder of lady and son-Death sentence by trial court-Confirmed by 
High Court-Courts below-Whether right in imposing death penalty--
Mitigating circumstances-Unfortunate relationship between deceased, 
C an elderly lady and appellant, in mid 20s-Sudden spurning by 
partner-Appellant experiencing disappointment of discarded /over-
Vicious effect of film picturising violence seen by appellant-Supreme 
Court converting death sentence to life imprisonment. 
The prosecution case was: The appellant, who was working under 
D P.W.l, developed intimacy with P.W.l's wife. However, on being 
found out hy her daughter, P. W .2, the wife was forced to terminate this 
relationship. 
Then, on 20.7.1985, the appellant saw a late night film containing 
murder scenes of four women and told his friend, P.W.5, that he would 
E take revenge for the betrayal by a lady. Thereafter he went to the house 
of P.W.l and attacked the wife with knife, and killed her son when he 
intervened. He also caused grievous injury to the daughter. 
The appellant was convicted by the trial court under s. 302 IPC 
for double murder of the woman and her son and also under s. 307 IPC 
F 
for attempting to kill her daughter and for house trespass in order 
to commit the aforesaid offences, and sentenced to death and life 
imprisonment respectively. 
G 
The High Court dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the death 
sentence. 
In the appeal by special leave, it was contended that although the 
appellant was not in such a mental state as to attracts. 84 of the IPC, he 
was certainly so agitated on account of the circumstances beyond his 
control that he should he spared from the extreme penalty of death. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, 
212 
MOORTIN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU !SHARMA, l.I 
223 
HELD: The deceased was an elderly lady with two children who 
took a defiant attitude, defending her conduct when she was rU"st 
confronted by her own dauehter, which suggests that the unfortunate 
relationship between her and the appellant, in his mid 20s, had 
developed with her encouragement. When suddenly spurned by his 
partner, the appellant must have experienced the disappointment of a 
discarded lover. His mental agitation was further fuelled by the movie, 
showing mnrder after murder. And when this upsets a youngman, 
already vulnerably disturbed, the society cannot be completely absolved 
of sharing the responsibility for the tragedy resulting from the vicious 
effect of tilms pi~turising violence. [225F-H; 226A-BJ 
Considering all these circumstances, and having regard to the fact 
that when commanded by P.W.16, the appellant stopped immediately, 
thereby resulting in the life of the daughter being saved, and that he 
did not attempt to escape, the sentence of death passed against the 
appellant under s. 302 Indian Penal Code is converted to imprisonment 
for life. [226B-C] 
· 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 317·of 1988. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.1987 of the Madras 
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 1986 and R. T. 6 of 1986. 
U.R. Lalit, V. Krishnamurthy and V. Balachandran for the 
Appellant. 
A. V. Rang am for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHARMA, 'J. The appellant was convicted by the trial court for 
double murder IDf a woman, Jayasambal by name and her son Vijay 
Anand, and wa:> sentenced to death. He was further convicted under 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
s. 307, I.P.C. for attempting to kill Vijay Anand's sister Kavitha 
Priyadarsini an•d for house trespass in order to commit the aforesaid 
G 
offences, and vvas 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 Peti· 
tion was filed against this judgment. 
2. At the 1preliminary he'!ring we were satisfied that the appel· 
H 
224 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
I 1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A !ant was rightly convicted as mentioned earlier. We, however, directed 
not(ce 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.t), the husband of the deceased Jayasambal and father of 
B deceased Vijay Anand, was a doctor working in the Government 
Hospital at Sadras and the appellant as a Leprosy I

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