LexMURUGAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10S.C.R. 78 A MU RU GAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 997 of 2008) JULY 7, 2008 )- B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376(1) rlw s. 511 ands. 302 - Rape and murder - Conviction under - Husband found ac- c cused lying over his wife and strangulating her resulting in her death - Conviction uls. 376(1) rlw s. 511 ands. 302 by courts below - Justification of- Held: Justified - Courts below analysed the evidence in detail and rightly concluded with re- gard to involvement of the accused. ,,.._ D According to the prosecution case, PW-1 was en- gaged in business and had employed accused as an as- sistant. The business was carried out in the ground floor and accused was also residing therein whereas PW-1 and his family were residing at first floor. On the fateful day, E PW-1 heard an alarming noise from the ground floor and tried to open the door but found it locked from inside. PW- 1 then peeped through the window and found the ac- cused taking position on his wife who was lying on the ground and strangulating her. Thereafter, the accused l F opened the door from inside and ran away. PW-1 along with PW-2 chased the accused. PW-1 went to the church and informed the people over there about the occurrence. He came back to his house and found his wife dead. PW- 1 lodged a complaint. Investigation was carried out. The G doctor conducted post mortem. Witnesses were exam- ined. The tri~I court convicted the appellant u/s. 376(1) read with s. 511 ands. 302 IPC and imposed rigorous im- prisonment for ten years and life imprisonment. High Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. H 78 MURUGAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 79 ~ Dismissing the appeal, the Court A HELD: 1. The trial court and the High Court analysed the evidence in great details and came to the right con- clusion about involvement of the accused. There is no __, infirmity in the reasoning of the trial court and the High Court to warrant any interference. [Para 11] [84-8] B 2.1 PW 1 chose to chase the accused along with PW 2 and having found some people in the church, which is nearby, informed them about the occurrence and thereafter came back to his house to verify the fate of his wife. PW 1 c obviously was in a state of shock having seen the accused strangulating his wife. It is quite common for a person un- der shock to share his grief to the persons who are found close by. It is not as if PW 1 rushed straight to the police station after informing certain pers·ons in the church with- D out even verifying the fate of his wife. [Para 8] [83-A,8 & C] 2.2 The accused was arrested on 6.9.2000 and only on the basis of his confessional statement his apparels had been recovered. It is not as if the door was opened by PW 1 immediately after witnessing the occurrence E through the window. The accused, who was inside the house, would have had time to remove his apparels, which were found blood stained, to put it in a safe place r in the house. Further it will not take much of a time to re- move the clothes by a person who was in a hurry to es- F cape from the scene of crime. In view of the above, there is nothing to doubt the recovery of the apparels of the accused made by the investigating officer. The recovery at the instance of the accused raises presumptions of guilt as against him. [Para 9] [83-C,E & F] G 2.3 It is an unfortunate case where the accused came out with a repulsive counter version that he had some affairs earlier with the victim, and when he was found embracing the wife of PW 1, it was witnessed by PW 1. He has stated that he was not the author of the murder. If at H 80 SUPREME; COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R. A all the victim had an affair with a stranger residing at a far off location, it would not have come to light. But stand of the accused, who lived in the ground floor for five years to be having an affair without being noticed is too hollow to be accepted.[Para 10] [83-G,H; 84-A] B CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal NO. 997 of 2008 From the final Judgment and Ord~r dated 14.6.2006 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. c 1547 of 2003 Prasanthi Prasad, (SCLSC) for the Appellant. R. Shunmugasundaram, S.J. Aristotle and V.G. Pragasam for the Respondent. D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the j
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.