MURUGAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2018] 5 S.C.R. 677 · Decided: 02-05-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
677
MURUGAN
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1498 of 2010)
MAY 02, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: ss. 364 and 302/34 –Kidnapping or
abducting in order to murder – On facts, father not agreeing to
proposal of main accused of marriage with his daughter – On the
fateful day, main accused alongwith the appellant (his cousin
brother) invited the father for dinner to main accused’s house, had
dinner together, and immediately thereafter, the father died –
Daughter had seen three of them sitting together and having dinner
– Confessional statement of main accused and on basis thereof,
recovery of weapons and clothes – Before trial could begin death
of main accused – Conviction and sentence of appellant u/s. 364
and 302/34 by the courts below – On appeal, held: Chain of events
appearing without any break, against the appellant which included
the motive behind the commission of the crime followed by the
manner in which the incident took place leading to the death of the
father – Also accused last seen in the company of the deceased is a
strong circumstance against the accused while appreciating the
circumstantial evidence – Furthermore, death of the main accused
was of no significance for the appellant’s prosecution since this
was a case of common intention of the two accused persons to
eliminate the father, and the appellant was found actively
participating in the crime till last along with the other accused, who
died – Thus, courts below rightly upheld the appellant’s conviction,
based on circumstantial evidence which was proved by the
prosecution by adducing ocular evidence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1.1 When the Courts below have recorded
concurrent findings against the accused person which are based
on due appreciation of evidence, this Court under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India would be slow to interfere in such
   [2018] 5 S.C.R. 677
677
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
678
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
concurrent findings and would not appreciate the evidence de
novo unless it is prima facie shown that both the Courts below
did not either consider the relevant piece of evidence or there
exists any perversity or/and absurdity in the findings recorded
by both the Courts below. [Para 20] [683-B-C]
1.2 Having gone through the evidence, it is found that the
findings are legally and factually sustainable in law. The two courts
below rightly held that the appellant’s conviction was based on
circumstantial evidence which, in this case, the prosecution was
able to prove it by adducing evidence. The prosecution was able
to prove the chain of circumstances/events appearing against the
appellant without any break therein and hence, the appellant’s
conviction deserves to be upheld. [Paras 21, 22] [683-D-E]
1.3 The motive, according to the prosecution, was that K
had a grudge against the deceased because he was not agreeable
to the K’s proposal to marry his daughter-G. This was proved
with the evidence of PWs-1, 2 and 3. It was rightly believed by
the two Courts below. The prosecution then proved that the
appellant along with K had gone to the house of the deceased for
inviting him for dinner at K’s house on the same night. The
deceased accepted the invitation and went to K’s house to have
dinner with K and the appellant. When the appellant was sitting
in the company of the deceased (M) till 11 P.M. along with K in
his house and had dinner with M and K, which was seen by G and
immediately thereafter M died, the appellant in cross-examination
of PWs-1,2 and 3 was not able to elicit anything to discredit the
evidence of the said three witnesses and to disprove the
circumstances deposed against him. It was necessary for the
appellant to have explained the aforementioned circumstances
appearing against him in the proceedings under Section 313 of
the Code. The appellant, however, failed to explain any
circumstances and denied his involvement in the crime.
[Para 25-28] [684-A-D]
1.4 From the evidence eight circumstances appeared
against the appellant. These circumstances are: first motive was
against the deceased due to his not agreeing to the proposal of
marriage of K with his daughter; second, the appellant and K,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
679
both being the cousins, knew each other very well; third, both
went together to the house of the deceased to invite him for a
dinner at K’s house; fourth, all the three had dinner together at
K’s house; fifth, M died immediately aft

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