STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC. versus SURESH (A-2) AND ANR.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 203 · Decided: 05-12-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF TAMIL NADU ETC. 
A 
v. 
SURESH (A-2) AND ANR. 
DECEMBER 5, 1997 
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.J 
B 
Penal Code, 186(}-Sections 302 and 376 r/w Section 34-Young wife . 
fell from 4th floor and died instantaneously-Alleged criminal conspiracy be-
tween husband, his brother and two of their employees to kill deceased-When 
husband abroad, other three accused sleeping in the house of victim, gagged C 
and smothered he1~ Two of the accused se>..11ally ravaged her and then dragged 
and dropped her from 4th floo1~Third accused became approver and gave 
eye-witness account-Sessions court acquitted husband but charged other two 
accused with murder and rape and sentenced them to death-High cowt set 
aside conviction holding that approver's version is improbable and, being an D 
accomplice, was unworthy of credit since he was not adequately cor-
roborated-On appeal-Held, Post mortem report and statement of doctor 
support evidence of approver-Evidence not improbable-High court judg-
ment set aside-Conviction by sessions court under Section 302 and 376 !PC 
restored-However-Sentence reduced to life imp1isonment. 
Evidence Act, 1872, Section 113 and Illustration(b) to Section 
ll4-Un-c01roborated testimony of an accomplice-Credibility-Held: Law 
is not that evidence of an accomplice deserves outright rejection for want of 
con-oboration-However, it is desirable for court to seek reassuring cir-
cumstances as to truth of evidence. 
Section 157-The expression 'at or about the time when the fact took 
place' -Held, to be understood in the context of facts of each case-Test is 
whether witness had the opportunity to concoct or to be tutored in the 
inte"egnum. 
E 
F-
A young enceinte wife fell from the fourth floor of a building and G 
died instantaneously. Initially it was taken to be a case of suicide, but 
subsequently it was found to be a criminal conspiracy of murder. The 
prosecution version was based on the solitary evidence of the approver, 
PW-1. It was stated that there was estrangement between the husband and 
deceased wife due to dowry. Furthermore, there was animosity between the H 
203 
, 
204 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A deceased and A-2 sinceA-2 believed that the deceased was injecting hatred 
I 
B 
again~t him in the mind of hi~- brother. The husband of the deceased (a 
businessman), his brother, Ai (another businessman) and two of their 
employees (A3 and PW-1) conspired to kill the deceased during the ab-
sence of the husband. On the midnight of 9.6.87, when the husband was 
abroad, A2, A3 and PW-1, who were sleeping in the same house, as the 
accused went to the room where the deceased was sleeping with her 4 year 
old child. They gagged her and when she resisted, pressed her neck and 
mouth to smother her. In the scuffie her bangles broke. PW-1 caught the 
deceased while A2 and A3 ravished her. Then all three lifted the live body 
of the deceased to the balcony and dropped her down. She died immedi-
C ately. After the murder, PW-1 went to stay with his brother-in-law, PW-6 
and thereafter, he went to work with PW- 15. On seeing his photo in the 
newspaper on 24.6.87, he rnshed back to PW-6, with whose help he sur-
rendered. 
Relying on the evidence of the approver and some corroborative 
D evidence, the Sessions Court acquitted the husband, but convicted A2 and 
A3 of rape and murder and sentenced them to death. 
The High Court confirmed the acquittal and set aside the conviction 
and sentence of A2 and A3 on the grounds that the approver's version was 
E improbable and his evidence was unworthy of credit since it was not 
corroborated. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The High Court has seriously erred in upsetting the 
F conviction by the Sessions Court against A2 and A3. [216-E-F] 
1.2. The doctor's opinion, who had conducted the autopsy on the 
body, that the deceased was subjected to forceful smothering can be 
unhesitatingly accepted in view of the fact that there were numerous 
G injuries found around the lips, chin, neck and lower part of the nose of the 
deceased. [209-G-H; 210-A-B] 
1.3. The High Court erred in negating the version of PW-1 regarding 
sexual ravage of the deceased. In view of the bruising found on the 
deceased, as set out in the post mortem report, and the emphatic statement 
H of the doctor who conducted the autopsy that the bruises could not have 
STATE v. SURESH (A-2) 
205 
been caused in a fall, it can not be doubt

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