REDDY SAMPATH KUMAR versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 133 · Decided: 08-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

REDDY SAMPATH KUMAR 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 
[H.K. SEMA AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 & 57-Murder-~dical practitioner 
allegedly caused death of his parents-in-law and their three minor children by 
administering them poison through injection-Act allegedly dOne with the C 
intention of grabbing propo:rty--Conviction by Courts be/ow-Validity of-
Held, valid-Prosecution established circumstantial evidence against the 
accused-appellant beyond all reasonable doubt by leading cogent evidence-
Deterrent punishment is warranted for such gruesome, pre-mediated and cold 
blooded murder-Appellant sentenced to imprisonment in terms of S. 5 7 I PC 
without any entitlement to remission. 
n 
According to the prosecution, Appellant - a medical practitioner 
caused the death of his parents-in-law and their three minor children by 
administering them poison through injection. He did the act by making 
them believe that they were suffering from AIDS, whereas it was a fact 
that no member of their family was suffering from AIDS. Appellant E 
allegedly committed the act with the intention of grabbing the property 
of his father-in-law. Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 
IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. On 
appeal, the High Court confirmed the conviction. Hence the present 
appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence. Both 
the Trial Court and the High Court recorded the finding concurrently as 
to the circumstances leading to the guilt of the· appellant which would G 
complete the chain and is incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis 
except that of the guilt of the appellant. The circumstances which were 
established against the appellant have been concisely enumerated by the 
High Court. (135-D-E] 
133 
H 
134 
-'SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2005) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
1.2. It is well settled principle of law that in order to sustain 
conviction, the circumstantial evidence must be complete and incapable 
of explanation of any other hypothesis except that of the guilt of the 
accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of 
the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence. (136-C) 
B 
1.3. In this case prosecution has established the circumstantial 
c 
D 
E 
evidence against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt by leading 
cogent evidence. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the concurrent findings 
recorded by the trial court and the High Court which would warrant 
interference by this Court. (136-D) 
2~1. The facts of this case shocked the judicial conscience. The 
gruesome murder was perpetrated in cold blooded, premediated and well 
organized manner. It calls for deterrent punishment. Such gruesome and 
cold blooded murder with a view to grab the property is not only delict 
the law but also have a deleterious effect in civil society. (136-E) 
2.2. Considering the nature of the crime and the manner in which it 
has been perpetrated, the ends of justice would warrant that the appellant 
should be in jail in terms of Section 57, IPC. It is directed that the appellant 
shall not get the benefit of any remission either granted by the State or 
by Government of India on any auspicious occasion. (136-F-G) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 551 
of 2004. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 5.9.2003 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in Crl.A. No. 313 of 200 I. 
F 
Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant. 
P. Vinay Kumar and Mrs. D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEMA, J. Heard parties. 
G 
The sole appellant was put to trial under Sections 302/201/467/468/420 
!PC and under Section 15(2)(b) of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. The 
trial court after threadbare discussion of the evidence and documents placed 
on record convicted the appellant under Section 302 !PC and sentenced him 
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 200 each on five 
H counts and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one month on each 
REDDY SAMPA TH KUMAR'" STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [SEMA, J.] 
J J 5 
count. On appeal, the High Court confinned the conviction. Hence, this appeal A 
by special leave. 
The facts established are that in the intervening 11/12 March, 1998 the 
accused who was medical practitioner caused the death of his father in law, 
mother in law and

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