S. GANESAN versus RAMA RAGHURAMAN & .ORS

Citation: [2011] 1 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 03-01-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-c 
[2011] 1 S.C.R. 27 
S. GANESAN 
.v. 
RAMA RAGHURAMAN & .ORS. . 
. · {Crimina~ Appeal No. 989 .of 2003) . · 
JANUARY 3, 2011 
(P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.l 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
s.304(Part-11)134 - Culpable homicide not amounting to c 
murder - A married couple beating the victim and causing . 
his death - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction by t(ial court 
uls 302 rlw s.120-B - Acquittal by High Court - HEl:.D: The 
High Court neither dealt with any of the incriminating 
circumstances pointed out by the prosecution nor did it 0 
address itself to the relevant issues involved in the appeal -
Therefore, judgment of the High Cowt suffers from perversity 
and is set aside -
Victim died ofinjuries in the house of 
accused - Doctor opined that the injuries, whi.f;h could be 
caused by the weapon (hammer) found in fhe house of 
accused, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to E 
cause the death - The accused were the only pe'rsons who 
could have explained as to the circumstances and the manner 
in which the victim suffered the grievous injuries on vital parts 
of his body - Thus, the court has to draw its own inference 
considering the totality of the circumstances - Prosecution did- F 
not establish any motive to commit the crime - There are 
circumstances in favour of the accused to show that in spite 
of the fact that they had committed the offence they did not 
intend to kill the dec_eased, but exceeded their right of self-
defence -:- They are accordingly convicted uls 304(Part 1/)134 G 
!PC with. a sentence of 5 years RI - Sentence/Sentencing -
Mitigating circumstances -
Evidence -
Circumstantial 
evidence - Criminal Law - Motive - Right of self defence ':'" 
·I' I 
.. :~. 
27 
H 
.-:.·· 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 1 S.CR. 
A· Appeal against acquittal- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 
136. 
)._ 
• 
Criminal Law: 
: 8 
· · Framing of cha[ge - Accused charg.ed with offences 
punishab/f3 u/s 302 read with s.120-B /PC - Conviction by -
Supreme Court uls 304(Part 11)134 /PC - HELD: Unless i 
parties satisfy the court that there has been failure of justice • 
from non-framing of charge under a particular provision and 
some prejudice has been caused to them, conviction under 
C 
such provision of law is sustainable - Penal Code, 1860 -
, 
s.304(Part-l/)134. 
, 
· 
Respondents 1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2), the wife and the 
husband respectively, were prosecuted for causing the 
o death of one 'GA', who was known to them and was • 
residing in their flat at the time of the occurrence. The . 
prosecution case, as revealed from the statement of A-1 
made to the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW1), was that 
when, on the day of occurrence at about 9_.00 A M, A-1 
E went to wake up 'GA', he misbehaved with her and as she 
could not get her out of his clutches, she took the 
hammer lying in the room and hit him on his head. On 
hearing her cries, A-2 reached there and also hit the 
victim on his head several times with the same hammer. 
A-1 then called the doctor (PW-3) and on his advice both 
F 
the accused took the injured to the hospital. Initially, a 
case for the offence punishable u/s s.307 IPC was 
registered against both· the accused, but on the death of 
\the victim the following day, the case was altered from 
s.307 IPC to s.302 IPC. The trial court considered the 
G incriminating circumstances, namely, i) the deceased was 
with the accused in their flat on the fateful day; ii) the 
deceased received fatal injuries in the same flat which . 
ultimately led to his ~eath; iii) A.1 approached the doctor 
(PW.3), immediately after the incident and brought him to 
H 
-S-:--OANESAN -v. RAMA RAGHURAMAN & ORS. 
29 
the flat and PW.3 deposed that the deceased was lying A 
-( 
in a pool of blood, the doors and windows were closed 
. and there was complete darkness inside at 9 O' Clock in 
the morning; ivl the weapon i.e., a hammer, (M.0.1 ), seized 
at the instance of A.1, though .such a hammer is not 
generally fou'ld in the household; v) the seizure of blood B 
; stained articles which had been used for mopping/ 
. 
. 
~ 
: cleaninQ the place of occurrence; vi) the panchnama.,and 
the evidence of PW.3 made it clear that there were the 
circumstances of cleaning of the blood of the deceased 
before his arrival; that none other than the accused were c 
living in that flat and· no other person had an opportunity 
to clean the flat; and vii) it was fully established that the 
injuries suffered by the

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