UDAYAKUMAR versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2023] 2 S.C.R. 943 · Decided: 16-03-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
UDAYAKUMAR
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 1741 of 2010)
MARCH 16, 2023
[B. R. GAVAI AND SANJAY KAROL, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 : ss. 302, 120B – Murder – Due to rivalry
A-1 alongwith A-3 hatched a conspiracy to murder the victim and
engaged services of A-2 for the same – A-2 killed the victim with a
sickle thereafter, fled with A-1 and A-2 – Incident witnessed by
PW-1 – Conviction of all of them for offences punishable u/s. 302
and 120B and awarded life imprisonment – High Court acquitted
A-1 and A3 for both the offences and A-2 for the offence u/s 120B,
however, conviction of A-2 for the offence punishable u/s 302 upheld
on the basis of identification by PW1 – On appeal, held: Other
than the identification of A-2 being the assailant as witnessed by
PW-1, no material on record linking A-2 to the crime – No material
to indicate that A-1 or A-3 hired the services of A-2 for murdering
the victim – No material indicating A-2 to have murdered the victim
with a sickle – Testimony of the PW1 contradicted and his version
belied through the testimony of the IO – No basis or reason to have
upheld the conviction of A-2, more so, when on the basis of the very
same set of evidence led by the prosecution, the principle
conspirators involved in the crime were acquitted – Accused cannot
be convicted on the basis of the principles of preponderance of
probability –  Neither the chain of evidence completely established
nor the circumstances, conclusively pointing towards the guilt of
commission of crime by A-2 – Prosecution failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt – Thus, the impugned judgment and
sentence quashed and set aside.
Test identification parade – Purpose and scope of.
Udayakumar & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu dated
15.03.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 17, 22 and 24 of
2010; State v. Panneerdass & Ors. the Ld. Trial Court
[2023] 2 S.C.R. 943
943
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
944
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 2 S.C.R.
dated 04.12.2009 in S.C. No. 113 of 2009; Anil Phukan
v. State of Assam (1993) 3 SCC 282 : [1993] 2 SCR
389; Heera v. State of Rajasthan (2007) 10 SCC 175 :
[2007] 7 SCR 1065; Sheikh Sintha Madhar v. State
(2016) 11 SCC 265 : [2016] 2 SCR 936; State of
Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 : [1999] 5
Suppl. SCR 215; Gireesan Nair & Others v. State of
Kerala (2023) 1 SCC 180; Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam
(2013) 12 SCC 406 : [2013] 3 SCR 830; Hanumant
Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. AIR 1952 SC 343
: [1952] SCR 1091; State v. Mahender Singh Dahiya
(2011) 3 SCC 109 : [2011] 1 SCR 1104; Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Mahrashtra (1984) 4 SCC
116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Ramaphupala Reddy v. State of
Andhra Pradesh (1970) 3 SCC 474; Balak Ram v. State
of U.P. (1975) 3 SCC 219 : [1975] 1 SCR 753;
Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat (1983) 3 SCC
217 : [1983] 3 SCR 280 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1993] 2 SCR 389
referred to
Para 9
[2007] 7 SCR 1065
referred to
Para 9
[2016] 2 SCR 936
referred to
Para 9
[1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 215
referred to
Para 9
(2023) 1 SCC 180
referred to
Para 9
[2013] 3 SCR 830
referred to
Para 11
[1952] SCR 1091
referred to
Para 11
[2011 1 SCR 1104
referred to
Para 11
[1985] 1 SCR 88
referred to
Para 14
(1970) 3 SCC 474
referred to
Para 15
[1975] 1 SCR 753
referred to
Para 15
[1983] 3 SCR 280
referred to
Para 15
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
945
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
1741 of 2010.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.03.2010 of the High Court
of Madras in CRLA No. 17 of 2010.
R. Balasubramanian, Sr. Adv., Kumar Dushyant Singh,
Dharmendra Kumar Sinha, Ms. Subasri Jaganathan, K. Velmurugan,
Ms. V. Thanuja, Abhinav Jain, Advs. for the Appellant.
V. Krishnamurthy, AAG, Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Shobhit Dwivedi,
Ms. Richa Vishwakarma, Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SANJAY KAROL, J.
1. The Appellant Udayakumar (A-2) stands convicted by both
the courts below for murdering one Purushothaman, thus having
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860. Consequently he is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for
life. However, in relation to an offence under Section 120-B of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 he stands acquitted vide impugned judgement delivered
by High Court dated 15.03.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 17, 22 and 24 of
2010 titled as Udayakumar & Ors. v. The State of Tamil Nadu.
2. Significantly, in terms of the very same impugned judgement,
the other two co-accused persons namely Pan
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.