SELVARAJ @ CHINNAPAIYAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2014] 11 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 09-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAMAJIT SEN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 229 
SELVARAJ @ CHINNAPAIYAN 
v. 
STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 892 of 2009) 
DECEMBER 09, 2014 
[VIKRAMAJIT SEN AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Prosecution case that 
appellant-father strangulated the child and three days later the 
child died - Conviction of appellant uls. 302 by courts below 
C 
-
On appeal, held: On facts, prosecution could not 
successfully prove homicidal death of the child and the 
charge of offence punishable u/s. 302 as against the appellant 
who is in jail for about eight years - Thus, the courts below 
erred in holding that the charge stood proved against the 
D 
appellant - Order of conviction and sentence against the 
appellant set aside. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. In the instant case, PW 2-mother of the 
deceased, who is the key witness of the case, though 
supported the prosecution story in her examination-in-
chief, but turned hostile in the cross-examination. PW 3-
mother-in-law of the appellant and PW 10-sister of the 
informant also turned hostile in her cross-in-examination. 
Even the homicidal death of the child is not clear, 
particularly, in view of the final opinion of the Medical 
Officer-PW-12 after receiving the Forensic report. In the 
autopsy report there is nothing on record suggesting 
strangulation or asphyxia. PW-5 and PW-6 (both witnesses 
G 
of recovery memo) did not support the prosecution case 
even in their examination-in-chief. PW 4-nurse, who could 
said to be the only independent witness, too turned hostile 
E 
F 
to the prosecution. There was no evidence on record 
229 
H 
230 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
'!. 
[2014] 11 S.C.R. 
A showing that when the child was admitted in the hospital 
where she died, her medico legal was got done. It is not at 
all explained by the prosecution that PW-2, PW-3 and PW-
10 who said to have witnessed the accused committing 
the crime, and the incident had taken place in the parental 
B house of the informant, why not the accused was 
apprehended then and there. Prosecution tried to develop 
the story that the accused was strangulating the child with 
the gunny wire and was simultaneously inserting paddy 
seeds in the mouth of the infant. Both these modes 
c simultaneously appear to be unnatural. [Para 12-14, 17-22] 
[235-0-F; 236-E-G; 237-8-E] 
1.2. On consideration of all facts, it cannot be said that 
prosecution successfully proved charge of offence 
punishable under Section 302 IPC as against the 
D appellant who is languishing in jail for about eight years. 
The trial court and the High Court erred in law in holding 
that the charge of offence punishable under Section 302 
IPC stood proved against the appellant. Conviction and 
sentence recorded against the appellant under Section 
E 302 IPC is set aside. [Para 23-25] [237-F-H; 238-A] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 892 of 2009. 
F 
From the Judgment & Order dated 08.01.2008 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in Crl. A.No. 337 of 2007. 
Jayanth Muthraj, C.K. Sasi for the Appellant. 
M. Yogesh Kanna, Sarth Kumaran, Jananai for the 
G Respondent. 
H 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against 
judgment and order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the High Court 
•sELVARAJ @CHINNAPAIYAN v. STATE REPRESENTED 231 
BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] 
of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 337 of 2007 
A 
whereby said Court has dismissed the appeal of accused-
appellant Selvaraj@ Chinnapaiyan, who was convicted by the 
trial court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), 
and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and directed 
to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of which he was 
B 
directed t6 undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period 
of three months. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 
papers on record. 
c 
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that accused-appellant 
Selvaraj @ Chinnapaiyan is husband of PW-2 Selvi. He 
belongs to Vellala Gounder Community, and PW-2 Selvi 
belongs to Vanniayar Community. The two developed intimacy. 
0 
This was not liked by Sundarammal (mother of Selvaraj). As 
such the accused-appellant Selvaraj and PW-2 Selvi left the 
village, and started living as husband and wife in Bangalore. 
From their relationship PW-2 Selvi conceived a baby. 
Sundarammal, when came to know of it, wanted to get the baby 
a
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.