NADIMUTHU AND ORS. versus THE STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 182 · Decided: 26-02-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NADIMUTHU AND ORS. 
v. 
THE STA TE REP. BY INSPECTOR UF POLICE 
B 
FEBRUARY 26, 2007 
[S.B. SINHAANDMARKANDEYKATJU,JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 302 read with s. 34 and 114-Prosecution for 
murder-Eye-witness to the incident-Different version of incident by the 
C eye-witness before Village Administrative Officer, police and also Judicial 
Magistrate-Later version of eyewitness corroborated by medical evidence 
and evidence of other wi(nesses-Conviction by courts below-On appeal, 
held: Conviction justified in view of the facts of the case. 
D 
Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were prosecuted for accused having caused death 
of one person. The deceased was brother of accused Nos. 1 to 3 and son of 
accused Nos 4. The accused first tied the deceased with a rope, beat him on 
his forehead, strangulated him with a rope and them poured poison in his 
mouth. As a result the deceased died. PW-1 (wife of the deceased) was the 
witness to the incident. On hearing the cry of the deceased, PWs. 4 and 6 
E reached there and had asked the accused as to why they were beating him, 
they were told not to interfere as the matter was their family affair. Accused 
threatened PW-1 not to reveal the truth. Hence she narrated a false story to 
Village Administrator, as tutored by the accused. When her father came to 
he, she narrated him and also to the police, the true version. She also gave a 
F statement before the Judicial Magistrate. Trial Court found the accused guilty 
under section 302 read with ss. 34 and 114 IPC. Conviction was confirmed by 
High Court. Appeal of accused No. 4 before High Court was abated due to his 
death. 
G 
H 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The accused have committed a heinous crime and there is no 
reason to interfere with the judgment of the High Court. There is no reason 
to disbelieve P.W. 1 and PW. 4 PWl was the wife of the deceased and her 
evidence inspires confidence. [Paras 6 and 8) (185-E; 186-C] 
182 
- .. .,. 
-
1 ' 
NADIMUTHU v. STA TE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [KA TJU. J.] 183 
2. P. W 1 has stated in her evidence that the statement before the Village A 
Administrative Officer was made at that time because she was terrified at the 
time and was told by the accused that. they would kill her if she told the truth. 
At that time she had no support from anyone, and it was only after arrival of 
her father that she got the courage to speak the truth. Hence, her statement 
made to the Village Administrative Officer was under duress and threat, and B 
her evidence given before the Trial Court is credible and is supported by the 
medical evidence as well as the evidence of PW. 4 and other witnesses. 
(Para 7) (185-H; 186-A-BJ 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 680 of 
2006. 
From the Judgment and Final Order dated 3.3.2005 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Madrasin Criminal A. No. 86/1997. 
P.R. Kovilan Poongkuntran, V. Vasudevan and T. Harish Kumar for the 
.C 
Appellants. 
D 
Sundaravaradan, V.G. Pragasam, S. Vallinayagam and S. Prabhu 
Ramasbramanian for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
MARKANDEY KAT JU, J. I. This appeal has been filed against the E 
impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 3.3.2005 in Criminal 
Appeal No. 86 of 1997. Heard learned counsel for the parties and persued the 
record. 
2. The procecution case is that P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased. The F 
deceased is the elder brother of accused nos. I to 3. Accused no. 4 is the 
father of the deceased and accussed nos. I to 3. PW .I is the daughter-in-law 
of accused no.4. The deceased and the procecution witnesses are the residents 
of Sodiankadu village. PW. I married the deceased about 9 years prior of the 
date of occurance. PW. I and the appeallants herein lived as a joint family. It 
is alleged that the deceased was leading a wayward life. PW. I was having a G 
five and half years old daughter and a son, who was two years old at the time 
of occurance. PW.l's father was looking after his daughter and children. On 
14.7.1994 at about 9.30 p.m. the deceased came in a bicycle to his house. PW. I 
offered him food, but he refused to eat. He enquired from PW.J as to where 
H 
184 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 3 S.C.R. 
A his father was. At that time, accused no. 4, the father of the deceased was 
in the house. The deceased demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- from him, but he 
refused to give him the money since he was allegedly leading a wayward life. 
The deceased threatened acc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.