LexRAMACHANDRAN versus STATE OF KERALA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2d12] 9 S.C.R. 919 RAMACHANDRAN V. STATE OF KERALA (Criminal Appeal No. 732 of 2008) OCTOBER 30, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: A B s. 302 - Murder - Circumstantial evidence - Accused c causing murder of his wife by forcibly administering poison to her and smothering - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by trial court affirmed by High Court - Held: There is ample evidence of prosecution witnesses that the deceased was subjected to physical violence almost on 0 a daily basis - There was motive for the offence - The clinching evidence establishing that the death was caused in the matrimonial house by forcible administering of poison to deceased and by smothering - Thus, there is no break in the chain of evidence which could through up some other possibility - There is no exceptional circumstance or reason E to disturb the concurrent finding of fact recorded by courts below and to interfere with the conviction and sentence - Circumstantial evidence. The appellant was prosecuted for committing the F murder of his wife. The couple had married four years before the incident and had two children, the younger one being aged about 3 months. The prosecution case was. that there was a history of matrimonial discord between the couple, as the appellant was stated to have G illicit relations with the wife of his elder brother. On the interve11ing night of 10th and 11th March, 1998 at about 1.00 A.M. there was a quarrel between the couple. Thereafter the appellant forcibly administered a strong 919 H 920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012) 9 S.C.R. A pesticide to his wife, and when she ran out of the house and fell down, the appellant smothered her nose anc: mouth, which resulted in her death. The trial court convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The appeal of the accused was B dismissed by the High Court. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 This Court upholds the view taken by the trial court and affirmed by the High Court that the case C was one of murder and not of suicide. [para 1) [922-A] 1.2 There is ample evidence ·on record not only from the immediate family of the deceased (PWs 1, 2 and 3, father, mother and sister, respectively of the deceased) 0 but also from her neighbour (PW-7) that she was subjected to physical violence almost on a daily basis. The cause of discord between the appellant and the deceased appears to be her belief that the appellant had illicit relations with the wife of his elder brother. The E strained relations, coupled with the allegations made by the deceased, provided a motive for the appellant to murder her. [para 29) [928-E-G] 1.3 What is clinching in the instant case is the medical evidence. The High Court noted that the unnatural deatf'i F of the victim was not in dispute. The High Court placed great emphasis on the unambiguous evidence of the doctor (PW 10) to the effect that death of the victim was caused by smothering and administration of toxic Furadan which was found in her mouth and pharynx. As G testified by the doctor, the various injuries on the deceased, though minor, indicated that the administration of Furadan was forcible and that she had resisted this. No person other than her husband could have possibly caused her death, especially considering the motive or H grudge that he harboured against her. [para 22 and 31) RAMACHANDRAN v. STATE OF KERALA 921 [925-H; 926-A-B; 928-H; 929-B] 1.4 The trial court discounted the theory that the appellant and his father had gone to the temple to witness 'Koothu'. It was noted that there was nothing to support such a statement. [para 18) [925-C] A B 1.5 It is true that the case is one of circumstantial evidence but there is no break in the chain of evidence which could possibly throw up some other possibility. Under the circumstances, there is no exceptional circumstance or reason to disturb the concurrent finding C of fact recorded by both the courts below and to interfere with the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court. [para 27 and 34] [928-B; 929-F] Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar, 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 465 = (2002) 1 SCC 679; Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1977 (1) SCR 280 = (1976) 4 sec 158- relied on. Case Law Reference: 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 465 relied on 1977 (1) SCR 280 relied on para 24
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.