KRISHNAN @ RAMASAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-8
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
July 01,2014
KRISHNAN @ RAMASAMY
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ARJUN MARIK VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]BODH RAJ VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [REFERRED TO]
JASWANT GIR VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MAHAVEER KEVAT VS. STATE [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-7-50] [REFERRED TO]DILIP KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-1-178] [REFERRED TO]
RAMAYAN SAHU @ RAMAYAN PRASAD SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-6-53] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV SHANKAR, SON OF SUKHRAM; RAMENDRA ALIAS MUNNA (AGE 23 YEAR) S/O UMA SHANKER; ANKIT SHARMA SON OF SULKHE SHARMA; SONU SAINI SON OF SHIVLAL SAINI; NIZAMUDDIN, SON OF ANWAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-137] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ CHOUBEY VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH POLICE OUTPOST-NAILA [LAWS(CHH)-2017-11-100] [REFERRED TO]
PHOOL SINGH KANWAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH POLICE STATION-BALKO [LAWS(CHH)-2018-2-80] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR DEWANGAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-1-154] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRATAP PANDEY VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-4-236] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH, S/O BHAGWAT SONWANI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH STATION HOUSE OFFICE [LAWS(CHH)-2017-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
BAVUDDIN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-10-49] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA SINGH @ GHODA S/O SH. CHHOTU SINGH, BY CASTE RAWAT, R/O VILLAGE BORAJ, POLICE STATION CHRISTIAN GANJ, DISTRICT AJMER (AT PRESENT CONFINED IN CENTRAL JAIL, AJMER) VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-8-47] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. CHAND BASHA [LAWS(SC)-2015-9-54] [REFERRED TO]
SMT.LAXMI VERMA VS. SHARIK KHAN [LAWS(MPH)-2017-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
IN REFERENCE; RAVISHANKAR @ BABA VISHWAKARMA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2016-12-133] [REFERRED TO]
SANKAR ROY AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2016-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
UBHEY RAM @ GUDDU DEWANGAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-11-179] [REFERRED TO]
AMBUJ KUMAR BHADRO AND ORS. VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2015-11-22] [REFERRED TO]
MUNNA & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-228] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMANLAL JANGDE VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2023-7-77] [REFERRED TO]
OM PRAKASH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2015-3-37] [REFERRED TO]
JABIR VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2023-1-41] [REFERRED TO]
RAMBRAKSH @ JALIM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(SC)-2016-5-25] [REFERRED TO]
BELASIYA BAI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH THROUGH P S MARVAHI [LAWS(CHH)-2017-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
MAINA VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-375] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2016-9-180] [REFERRED]
ISRAFIL HAQUE SARKAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2023-6-94] [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT SINGH VS. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2017-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
VIMLA BAI VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-62] [REFERRED TO]
DILLOO SINGH ALIAS DULOO RAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2019-7-183] [REFERRED TO]
GHARAU DAS AND ORS. VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-135] [REFERRED TO]
TUCHI @ BUDHRAM @ MOHAN PANDO S/O LATE MARTU PANDO VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2017-11-123] [REFERRED TO]
MANIK S/O HIRAMAN RATHOD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2017-11-349] [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEVAPPA PARASAPPA TALI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2017-2-260] [REFERRED TO]
BALBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN & ANOTHER VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-48] [REFERRED TO]
LEELA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-10-40] [REFERRED TO]
PARMESHWAR MURMU VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-1-172] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD ARSAD @ LAYAK S/O MOHAMMAD YAKUB, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, BY CASTE MUSALMAN, R/O JHHAVVARI, THANA JALALGARH, DISTRICT PURNIYA (BIHAR). (AT PRESENT CONFINED IN CENTRAL JAIL, BHARATPUR) VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH PUBLIC PROSECUTOR [LAWS(RAJ)-2016-10-25] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 31st March, 2008 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.1009 of 2005. By the impugned judgment the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge against the appellants for the offence under Section 364, 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC.
(2.)The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:
Prior to 4th April, 2004, the date of incident, the deceased Manikandan expressed his love to one Rajeswari, daughter of accused No.1, Krishnan @ Ramasamy and accused No.5, Selvam. For the said reason, there was a commotion which resulted in enmity between the accused on the one side and the deceased Manikandan on the other side. The deceased was driven out of Neyveli area. Subsequently, on 4th April, 2004 during Panguni Uthram Kaavadi Festival at Veludaiyanpattu village, the deceased visited for the festival. On the said date at about 6.30 p.m., the deceased along with his friends was talking behind the school at Vadakkumelur. At that time accused No.1, Krishnan @ Ramasamy, accused No.2 Rajendiran @ Chinnu, accused No.3, Ramalingam and accused No.5, Selvam came there and took the deceased Manikandan to the place near Mariyamman Temple and attacked him. Later, they took him in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.TN 31Y 2376 and abducted him under the pretext that the deceased was being taken to Police Station. On the way, the accused purchased brandy and at 6.15 p.m. in the cashew thope belong to one Vijeyendiran the deceased was taken out of the autorickshaw. Vijeyendiran told the accused not to assemble there. Then, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 took the deceased Manikandan to the side of the road leading to Vadakkumelur and under a margosa tree Manikandan was compelled to drink brandy. At about 12 midnight accused Nos.1 and 2 strangulated the deceased Manikandan by putting his towel around his neck and done him to death. Thereafter, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 put the dead body into a borewell.
(3.)On 10th April, 2004, based on the complaint given by the mother of the deceased Manikandan a complaint was registered for an offence under Section 365 IPC. On 13th April, 2004, the Police arrested accused No.3- Ramasamy, who gave a voluntary confession statement in pursuance of which accused No.3 took the Police to the borewell where they had hidden the dead body. Upon the identification of the borewell by accused No.3 with the help of Kurinjipadi fire service personnel, the dead body was taken out by the Police from the borewell. The body was identified by Valarmathi (PW.1), Amrthavalli (PW-2) Gopal (PW-3), Murugan (PW-4) and Rajeswari (PW-5) to be that of Manikandan. The body was sent to Panruti Government Hospital where inquest was conducted by Kabbadasan (PW-13) on 14th March, 2004 at 6 a.m. in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars. The inquest report is Ex.P.17. Ex.P.9 is the post mortem certificate and Ex.P.10 is the opinion given by the Doctor who conducted postmortem. The Investigating Officer, Kannadasan (PW-13) came to know that the other accused surrendered themselves before the Court. After concluding the enquiry, Kannadasan (PW- 13) laid charge sheet against the accused before the Court on 26th May, 2004 for the offence under Sections 364, 365, 302 and 201 IPC. The Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused, framed charges under Sections 364, 365, 302 and 201 IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
(2.)The case of the prosecution in nutshell is as follows:
Prior to 4th April, 2004, the date of incident, the deceased Manikandan expressed his love to one Rajeswari, daughter of accused No.1, Krishnan @ Ramasamy and accused No.5, Selvam. For the said reason, there was a commotion which resulted in enmity between the accused on the one side and the deceased Manikandan on the other side. The deceased was driven out of Neyveli area. Subsequently, on 4th April, 2004 during Panguni Uthram Kaavadi Festival at Veludaiyanpattu village, the deceased visited for the festival. On the said date at about 6.30 p.m., the deceased along with his friends was talking behind the school at Vadakkumelur. At that time accused No.1, Krishnan @ Ramasamy, accused No.2 Rajendiran @ Chinnu, accused No.3, Ramalingam and accused No.5, Selvam came there and took the deceased Manikandan to the place near Mariyamman Temple and attacked him. Later, they took him in an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.TN 31Y 2376 and abducted him under the pretext that the deceased was being taken to Police Station. On the way, the accused purchased brandy and at 6.15 p.m. in the cashew thope belong to one Vijeyendiran the deceased was taken out of the autorickshaw. Vijeyendiran told the accused not to assemble there. Then, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 took the deceased Manikandan to the side of the road leading to Vadakkumelur and under a margosa tree Manikandan was compelled to drink brandy. At about 12 midnight accused Nos.1 and 2 strangulated the deceased Manikandan by putting his towel around his neck and done him to death. Thereafter, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 put the dead body into a borewell.
(3.)On 10th April, 2004, based on the complaint given by the mother of the deceased Manikandan a complaint was registered for an offence under Section 365 IPC. On 13th April, 2004, the Police arrested accused No.3- Ramasamy, who gave a voluntary confession statement in pursuance of which accused No.3 took the Police to the borewell where they had hidden the dead body. Upon the identification of the borewell by accused No.3 with the help of Kurinjipadi fire service personnel, the dead body was taken out by the Police from the borewell. The body was identified by Valarmathi (PW.1), Amrthavalli (PW-2) Gopal (PW-3), Murugan (PW-4) and Rajeswari (PW-5) to be that of Manikandan. The body was sent to Panruti Government Hospital where inquest was conducted by Kabbadasan (PW-13) on 14th March, 2004 at 6 a.m. in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars. The inquest report is Ex.P.17. Ex.P.9 is the post mortem certificate and Ex.P.10 is the opinion given by the Doctor who conducted postmortem. The Investigating Officer, Kannadasan (PW-13) came to know that the other accused surrendered themselves before the Court. After concluding the enquiry, Kannadasan (PW- 13) laid charge sheet against the accused before the Court on 26th May, 2004 for the offence under Sections 364, 365, 302 and 201 IPC. The Sessions Judge secured the presence of the accused, framed charges under Sections 364, 365, 302 and 201 IPC. All the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.