S. SUBBULAXMI versus KUMARASAMY & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 7 S.C.R. 238 · Decided: 06-07-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
..... 
S. SUBBULAXMI 
v. 
KUMARASAMY & ORS. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1737 of 2007) 
JULY06, 2017 
.. [N. V. RAMANA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 34, 302 and 506(11) - Accused as 
well as victim parties are closely related persons - Land dispute 
C 
between parties resulting in death of appellant's husband -
Conviction of accused ulss. 34, 302 and 506(11) and sentenced 
accordingly by the trial court - Order of conviction set aside by the 
High Court - interference with - Held: Not called for - Applying 
judicial scrutiny to the facts and circumstances of the case, the 
prosecution story not trustworthy - Prosecution failed to prove the 
D guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt - Material on record 
shows huge suspicion and the evidence adduced on record full of 
contradictions - On basis of such evidence, not safe to fasten the 
liability on the accused - Investigating agency ignored its paramount 
duty of bringing home the guilt of the accused with probable 
E 
evidence as admissible under law, rather, spent time and mind on 
creating 'two occurrences and substantiating the same with the 
circumstances - Thus, the High Court had compelling and substantial 
reasons to set aside the order of conviction and sentence against 
the accused - Evidence. 
F 
G 
" H 
Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 
(2016) 4 SCC 357 : [2016] 1 SCR 913; Hare Krishna 
Singh & Ors. v. State ofBihar (1988) 2 SCC 95 : [1988] 
3 SCR 1; Appabhai & Anr: v. State of Gujarat (1988) 
Suppl. SCC 241; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punati 
Ramulu & Ors. AIR 1993 SC 2644 : [1994] 1 Suppl. . 
SCC 590; Ashish Batham v. State of MP. (2002) 7 SCC 
317: [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 146; Joginder Singh v. State 
of Haryana (2014) 11 SCC 335 - referred to. 
238 
S.·SUBBULAXMlv. KUMARASAMY & .ORS. 
239 
/ , 
/ 
Case Law Reference 
-- / / 
A 
/ 
i 
(2016] 1 SCR 913 . 
referred to . 
Para9 
I 
(1988) 3 SCR 1 
referred to 
Para9 . 
I 
I 
(1988) Suppl. sec 241 
referred to 
Para9 
I . 
-
i 
11994] 1 Suppl. sec 590 
referred to 
Para 13 
B 
' I 
(2002) 2 SuppL SCR 146 
referred to 
Para 13 
(2014j it. sec 335 
ref erred to · Para.IS 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE lURISDICTIQN: Criminal Appeal No .. 
1737 of 2007. 
· 
·· . · ... ·'-,.,. 
· 
.. . 
c 
FrQmtheJudgment~dOrderdated~.{)3iooSoftheHighCourt 
i · ... of Judi~a\ure!llMadras in Criminal Appeal No. 619 of!997. 
! 
' Jayant Muth Raj, Ms. Malavika J., C. K. Sasi, Advs. for the 
Appellant 
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, Sr. Adv., R. Nedumaran, S. Syed 
Mahaboob, M. Yogesh Kanna, Ms. Nithya, Ms. Maha Lakshmi, Partha 
Sarathi, Advs. for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
D 
. N. v. RAM;\NA. J, lo Aggneved by thejud@iieiiidaied '22..i E 
March. 2005 passed eyihe High Court ofJudicatuk iit M~s'hl Criiniiial 
Appe~I No~ 6~9. of I 997, th~ aJ)pCJlant ( coniplainautJ filed the piesent 
appeitl. By the judgment impugoed herein,~. High Court has set aside 
the 9rder ofCQnviction passed byibe trial'Court for the offences under 
Secti~llS 34, 30z and S06(Il) Indian Penal Code, l 860 (!PC) and acquitted · F 
the accused 
. 
-· 
. · . 2. Brief facts leading to thi~ appeal as discerned from the 
prosecution case are that tht! members ofvictim as well as accused 
gn;.ips are' closely related to one another. S. Subbulaxmi who is the 
appellant/complainant is the wife of the decease<l-Subramani. Respondent 
G 
No l'(Al) and Respondent No. 3 (A3) arehl!Sbl\lld an4 w~e. Respondent . 
· .. · 
No. 2 (A2)is the coiisill brother of Respondent N1>. l. (A I). ·Respondent 
· 
. No. 3 (A3) is $ister of the deceased-SubraIDaiii. dOvindswamy (DW2) 
is the father of Al. An amount ofRs.40,000/~ was hiiuded over to the 
father of deceased at the time of mamage ofappellant with the deceased 
H 
, 
• 
~· 
I 
-
-~· . 
.. 240 
SUPREME COURT REPOR,TS · , . .. 
. [2017] 7 S.C.R. 
,A and the same was deposited in a bank in the.names ofappellant and the 
deceased. The father of deceased wanteii' his son (deceased) and 
. daugli.ter~in~law (appellant)' to iend an WDQUnt ofRs:40,000/~ for the 
"'-· -
. . , · 
purpose of purchasing some agricultural land in the nwnes of his son-in-
; 
,law (Al) and hjs fat~e((D~2>; It appears .that ther~,was :in oral . 
,, . . 
agreement between'the ·deeeased and his father. to the effect that in 
· ,B exchange ofRS.40,000/-, father of the decea5ed will tranSfer thiee acies 
. , ... · .. ' 
: . ofland to his son. After same time, the father of deceased, instead of .. 
. 
. .· . ; '. .;

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