LexMUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2016) 8 S.C.R. 594 MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal Nos. 231-233 of2009) DECEMBER 09, 2016 [PINAi(! CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: ss.147, 148, 324, 307, 302 - Gruesome attack - Murder of 8 family members - 21 accused - Conviction C and sentence of life imprisonment for each count and sentence of imprisonment for 10 years ordered to run consecutively - On appeal, held: Prosecution case was well established by the testimonies of eye-witnesses and duly corroborated wherein factum of unlawful assembly was proved -Accused-appellants caused the death of eight persons in a barbaric and brutal manner wherein merciless killing D of a child of only 1 Yi years was also involved - Therefore, conviction is upheld - However, life sentences so awarded cannot be directed to run consecutively. E F Disposing of the appeals, the Court HELD: 1. In the present case, motive is seen in the collective testimony of eye-witnesses (PW1-PW3) when accused came out from the bushes shouting "kill them", "lrnck them", ''fire tllem", as also mentioned in the complaint. A child was also mercilessly attacked in the incident with a spear on his chest. Accused no.7 snatched away the child from her mother and killed her too with velstick. Even PW4 (though not an eye-witness of whole occurrence) also hid in the nearby bushes to save his life. In his statement, he also corroborated the factum of hearing shooting and also after identifying accused No.7, stated that "his wife was also killed by accused No.7 ••• ".Prosecution case was well established by the testimonies of eye-witnesses PW1-PW3 G and corroborated by PW4, wherein factum of unlawful assembly was proved. [Paras 13, 14) [601-E-G; 602-H; 603-A] 2. The accused-appellants did cause the death of eight persons in a barbaric and brutal manner wherein merciless killing of a child of only 1 Y, years is also involved. Therefore, the accused H 594 MUTHURAMALINGAM & ORS. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY 595 INSPECTOR OF POLICE in the present case do not deserve any sympathy. The judgment A passed by the High Court as far as awarding of sentences is concerned is upheld. However, the sentences shall run in conformity with the observations made by the Constitution Bench of this Court in its judgment dat~d 19.07.2016 passed in these appeals. [Paras 20, 21] [605-E-G] Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan (1971) 3 SCC 471; Willie (William) Stanley v. State of MP. AIR 1956 SC 116 : 1955 SCR 1140; Chhitarmal" State of Rajasthan 2003 (1) SCR 49 : (2003) 2 SCC 266; Umesh Singh & Anr. v. State of Bihar (2000) 6 SCC 89; Mnhan Singh v. · State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 174 :- 1962 Supp (3) SCR 848; Mahadeo Singh v. State of Bihar (1970) 3 SCC 46; Shambhunath Singh v. State of Bihar AIR 1960 SC 725; Mizaji v. State of UP AIR 1959 SC 572 : 1959 Suppl. SCR 940 - relied on. Case Law Reference (1971) 3 sec 471 relied on Para 10 1955 SCR 1140 relied on Para 11 2003 (1) SCR 49 relied on Para 12 (2000) 6 sec 89 relied on Para 14 1962 Supp (3) SCR 848 relied on Para 15 (1970) 3 sec 46 relied on Para 16 AIR 1960 SC 725 relied on Para 18 1959 Suppl. SCR 940 relied on Para 19 ' CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 231-233 of2009. B c D E F From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2007 of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Crl. A. (MD) No. 323, 328 and 451 of G 2006. WITH Crl. A. Nos. 225, 226-227, 895 of2009 Crl. A. No. 429 of2015. H 596 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 8 S.C.R. A. T. M. Ranga Ramanujam, Sr. Adv., K. K. Mani, Ms. T. Archana, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Amit Kumar Chawla, E. V. S. Venugopal, Ms. · Anu Gupta, G. Sivabalamurugan, M. Theepa, Ms. Vandana, L. K. Pandey, Vinodh Kanna B. S. Prabhu Rama Subramanian, Advs. for the Appellants. M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Advs. for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, J. I. Brief facts giving rise to the initiation of criminal proceedings in these cases are as follows: A gruesome incident occurred in Taluk Ramanathapuram, District Tamil Nadu in whiclt the appellants, the deceased and few witnesses were related to each other. As per prosecution case, on 10.02.1994, accused persons assembled unlawfully with deadly weapons and with the common intention to commit murder, they chased the family members of deceased Rajendran
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.