BASKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2014-4-96
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on April 25,2014

BASKARAN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

CHANDANLAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-4-59] [REFERRED TO]
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-270] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH SAHU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-77] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-470] [REFERRED TO]
K.K. POULOSE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2015-5-61] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH SHARMA VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-1-618] [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. SALIM KHAN AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2015-2-329] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-5-82] [REFERRED TO]
RAJMANI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-386] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY KUMAR LAWASKAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-105] [REFERRED TO]
KASHIRAM VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2022-10-9] [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA RAIKWAR VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2021-2-61] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEV VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-3-285] [REFERRED TO]
CHOTAY @ PREAM CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-7] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2018-8-134] [REFERRED TO]
AJAY @ BHATIYA GUPTA VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-5-188] [REFERRED TO]
KISHAN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2017-10-37] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 09.11.2006 passed by the High Court of Madras affirming the conviction and sentence of the first appellant under Section 376 (2) (g), 302 and 201 I.P.C. awarding sentence for life imprisonment along with Rs. 5,000/- fine, 10 years RI, along with Rs. 5,000/- fine and 3 years RI, with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- respectively. The Trial Court had awarded identical sentences to Appellant No. 2, who on appeal in the High Court, was acquitted of the offence of murder under Section 302 IPC but his conviction and sentence under Section 376 I.P.C. was maintained.
(2.)The case of prosecution which led to the conviction and sentence of the appellants summarily stated are as follows:
The Appellants -A1 & A2 along with two others had forcibly taken the deceased girl to a secluded place on 21.10.1995 at about 7.00 p.m., when she was raped and then in course of the same transaction, A1 had strangulated her to death. Further, with a view to screen the offence, all of them threw the dead body to a secluded place in an agricultural field. The body was then discovered by the elder brother of the deceased girl, the next day. Investigation of the case was thereafter conducted which included the post-mortem report of the body of the deceased, wherein the doctor had opined death due to strangulation, injuries on the body, bleeding vaginal rupture. However, the vaginal smear didn t reveal any traces of semen. The initial investigation didn t reveal the names of the appellants and even the witnesses examined didn t offer any clue in this regard. Thus, there were no eye-witness to the incident in support of the prosecution case.

(3.)After about 35 days, on 25.11.1995, the appellant No.1 approached PW10, the village Administrative Officer of Kadhili village whereby he confessed that he along with appellant No.2 and two others murdered the deceased after raping her and offered to surrender. This confession was reduced into writing in presence of PW-11 who was there and who signed the same. In pursuance to the confessional statement, the I.O. took him to the scene of crime where some earth sample was taken and then they went to A1 s home, where a diary belonging to the deceased was recovered. The next day, on 26.11.1995, A-2 approached PW-13, the village Administrative Officer of Sunderam Palli village and confessed about the crime, in the presence of PW-14, who had attested the written confession given to PW-13. The accused/appellants were then, committed to trial and convicted on the basis of the extra-judicial confession. While A-1 had identified A-4, A-2 had identified A-3 and thus, they too were arrested. However, later the trial court had acquitted A-3 and A-4 and the State did not challenge the same.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.