RAMACHAMI versus STATE REP. BY STATE PROSECUTOR

Citation: [2008] 15 S.C.R. 46 · Decided: 22-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 15 S.C.R. 46 
r 
A 
RAMACHAMI 
v. 
.. 
STATE REP. BY STATE PROSECUTOR 
(Criminal Appeal No.1399 of 2004) 
OCTOBER 22, 2008 
: 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND 
~ 
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
c 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 304 (part II) and 392 - Conviction of accused ulss 302 
and 392 on the basis of circumstantial evidence - Upheld by 
High Court - HELD: The circumstances established are 
sufficient to hold the accused guilty - However, considering 
D the nature of injuries, accused convicted u/s 304(par:t II) -
f 
Custodial sentence of 8 years would meet-the ends of justice 
- Conviction and sentence uls 392 need no interf.erence -
Both the sentences to run concurrently - Circumstantial 
evidence. 
E 
Appellant-accused was convicted ulss 302 and 392 
IPC by the trial court on the basis of the circumstances 
that he was seen along with the deceased, his co-
). 
)-
worker, on the night of occurrence and they were alone 
F in the hotel; that the accused knew where the deceased . 
. kept his money; that the following morning the deceased, 
sustaining injuries was found on the floor of the hotel 
near the cash counter; that the accused was absconding 
till his arrest; that the police recovered the weapon of 
G crime (a stick) from hotel premises at the instance of the 
accused. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. 
Aggrieved, the accused filed the appeal. 
Partly allowing ·the appeal, the Court 
H 
46 
RAMACHAMI v. STATE REP. BY STATE PROSECUTOR 
47 
HELD: 1.1. The circumstances clearly establish that A 
the accused was employed in the hotel and used to sleep 
in the hotel, and on the night ·of occurrence both the 
deceased and the accused were alone in the hotel. The 
evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 in this regard is clear, 
cogent and credible. Additionally, the accused and the 
B 
deceased were last seen together on the previous night. 
The appellant was absconding and was arrested long 
after the incident. The circumstances are sufficient to 
hold the accused guilty. [Para 7] (49-E-G] 
1.2. However, considering nature of the injuries, the 
appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 (Part 
c 
II) IPC and custodial sentence of 8 years would meet the 
ends of justice. Conviction and sentence u/s 392 IPC 
need no interference. Both the sentences u/ss. 304 and o 
392 IPC shall run concurrently. [Para 8 and 9] [49-G-H; 50-
A, B] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1399 of 2004. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.10.2003 of the 
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 436 
of 2001. 
V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. 
G. Prakash for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
E 
F 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the 
parties. 
G 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the 
Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upholding the 
conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under 
Sections 392 and 302 of th~ Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 
H 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 15 S.C.R. 
A 
'IPC'). He faced trial for offence punishable under Section 324 
IPC, but he was found to be not guilty of that charge. Life 
imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000 were im!losed. It was 
directed that in case the fine was collected, the same was to 
be paid to the widow of Kuttappan (hereinafter referred to as 
B 
'the deceased'). 
3. The prosecution version essentially rested on 
circumstances. The trial court found that the circumstances were 
sufficient to hold the accused guilty. Accordingly, conviction, as 
c noted above, was recorded. In appeal, the High Court did not 
find any substance in the plea of the appellant and upheld the 
conviction. 
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the 
0 
appellant submitted that the prosecution has not proved that the 
appellant was, at any point of time, employed at the hotel and 
present case is one where the wrong person has been picked 
up and has been convicted. Alternatively, it was submitted that 
an offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. 
E 
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, 
supported the judgment of the High Court. 
6. The circumstances, which were pressed into service by 
the prosecution to connect the accused with the offences, are 
F 
as follows: 
G 
H 
(i) 
the deceased Kuttappan and the accused 
Ramachamy used to sleep in the hotel itself in the 
night and on 3.2.1998 in the night they two were 
alone in the hotel (the

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