SUNDARAMURTHI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 653 · Decided: 16-12-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

SUNDARAMURTHI 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
DECEMBER 16, 1994 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K. JA YACHANDRA REDDY, JJ.] 
B 
Indian Evidence Act, I 872: Section 3. 
Circumstantial evidence-Conviction based on-Validity of Indian 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 302134, 392 and 449-Conviction under-Conviction based 
on circumstantial evidence-Validity of 
c 
The appellant, alongwith two other co-accused, was prosecuted for 
offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 392 and 449 of the Indian 
Penal Code, 1860. The prosecution case, based entirely on D 
circumstantial evidence, was that appellant, A2, and his father, A3, 
were running a rice mill, while Al was working for them. A3 had 
obtained loan from the deceased B and in lieu thereof deceased B and 
his brother-in-law, PW 8, who were doing business in sale and purchase 
of sago on commission basis, were occupying a portion of the house, 
without payment of rent, which was within the mill premises. It was E 
further case of the prosecution that A-3 borrowed two sums of Rs. 
20,000 and Rs. 15,000 and executed two promissory notes, Ex.P.l and 
P.2, in favour of the deceased. Two days before the date of occurrence 
deceased B obtained a loan of Rs. 25,000 from PW 16 and 17 and out of 
the said amount paid Rs. 10,000 to PW 10 in part payment towards 
sago purchase from him while the balance cash remained with him. On F 
9.10.1983, in the presence of PW 10, A3 demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000 
from the deceased and on his refusal to pay A3 vowed to reco:ver the 
possession of the house at any cost. On 10.10.1983 i.e. the day of 
occurrence at about 10.00 P.M. PW 11, who used to see sago through 
the deceased, came to see the deceased in his house and the deceased G 
told him that A3, who owed him Rs. 47,000 including the two 
promissory notes, was pestering him to vacate the house without paying 
the loan amounts. It is alleged that after PW 11 left, the murder of B 
was committed. PWs 1 to 4 deposed that sometime after 10.00 P.M. on 
the night of 10.10.1983 they saw Al and A2 entering the car shed of A3 
to gain access to the house where the deceased used to sleep. After two H 
653 
654 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] SUPP. 6 S.C.R 
A 
hours Al was seen coming out of the car shed carrying a bag and 10 
minutes later A2 also came out of the shed closing the gate of the mill 
compound and walking away. Next morning i.e. on 11.10. 1983 body of 
B was found lying on a cot in the house. Deceased's safe was found 
open and the cash and pronotes were missing. At the instance of Al, a 
bag containing 240 currency notes of Rs.SO each hidden in a pit in the 
B 
village and a blood stained shirt and lungi were recovered from the 
house of Al. Pursuant to the statement of A2, 80 notes of Rs.SO each 
were seized from his house. Pursuant to the statement of A3 two 
undischarged promissory notes were seized from him. The Expert 
opinion confirmed that the finger prints taken from the scene of 
occurrence tallied with those the Al. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Relying on the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 as well as the evidence of 
finger prints expert and on the basis of the recoveries made, the Trial 
Court convicted Al and sentenced him to death but acquitted A2 and 
A3 on the ground that circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to 
connect them with the crime. On appeal the High Court reduced the 
death sentence of Al to life imprisonment and confirmed the acquittal 
of A3. However, it set aside the acquittal of the appellant, A2, holding 
that the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 coupled with other circumstantial 
evidence sufficiently establish is guilt also and consequently convicted 
him under section 392, 449 and 302/34 and sentenced him to life 
imprisonment. A2 preferred an appeal to this Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. The High Court has considered all the circumstances 
and has rightly convicted the appellant. The Sessions Judge has 
erroneously rejected the evidence of PWs 1 to 4. There is nothing to 
show that these four witnesses were interested in any manner. What 
really they have stated regarding the movements of the appellant in the 
company of Al appears to be true and natural. Their evidence has been 
believed by both the courts as against Al and their evidence equally 
establishes that the appellant was also in the company of Al during 
that period when the murder took place. No doubt this circumstance by 
itself at the most may throw some suspicion, but one should remember 
that the appellan

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