RAVIKUMAR ALIAS KUTTI RAVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2006-2-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on February 22,2006

RAVIKUMAR ALIAS KUTTI RAVI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PANIBEN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
KANCHY KOMURAMMA V. STATE OF A.P. [REFERRED TO]
KOLI CHUNILAL SAVJI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
UKA RAM VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
P V RADHAKRISHNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHHTRA VS. SANJAY D RAJHANS [REFERRED TO]
MUTHU KUTTY VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KAMLESH DEVI VS. STATE OF J AND K [LAWS(J&K)-2007-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESH JAIN VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(MPH)-2007-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
BHAJJU ALIAS KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(SC)-2012-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
SHARAD GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2010-3-73] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWAN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(SC)-2012-12-17] [REFERRED TO]
RAJWATI VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2014-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
AMARSINGH MUNNASINGH SURYAWANSHI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-48] [REFERRED TO]
JAISHREE ANANT KHANDEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-18] [REFERRED TO]
BHAJJU ALIAS KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF M P [LAWS(SC)-2012-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
JAGAT TARAN CHAKRABORTY VS. STATE [LAWS(CAL)-2011-1-98] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD PANT VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(UTN)-2010-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
SHAMEEM VS. STATE OF HARYANA [LAWS(P&H)-2010-7-63] [REFERRED TO]
JAYENDRA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-218] [REFERRED TO]
SANJAY KUMAR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2014-4-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAJA VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-471] [REFERRED]
RAJKUMAR @ RAJESH @ RAJU AND ANR. VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2007-2-132] [REFERRED TO]
ASHWANI VS. STATE [LAWS(ALL)-2017-11-51] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGERAN RAM S/O LATE NATHUN RAI R/O VILLAGE - LOHARA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-5-101] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD RAEES & ANR VS. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-4-429] [REFERRED TO]
SIDDHANATH GOSWAMI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2018-6-131] [REFERRED TO]
AWADHESH KUMAR MISHRA AND 2 OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2018-9-129] [REFERRED TO]
RAGHUVIR VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-37] [REFERRED TO]
NATHU SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2022-1-45] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

P. P. Naolekar, J. - (1.)The accused-appellant was convicted by the Sessions Court under Section 302 of IPC to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. He was further found guilty of charge under Section 449, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo R.I. for a period of three months. The sentence imposed on the appellant was confirmed by the High Court. Aggrieved by the said order of conviction, the present appeal is preferred by the accused-appellant.
(2.)The relevant facts from the evidence of the prosecution are that Pushpa (deceased), her brother Selvaraj (PW-3) and Radha (PW-2 wife of PW-3), were residing at Bagalur in a rented house. On 15th January, 1998 at about 5.00 p.m., when PW-2 was returning from Sandai (market), she heard hue and cry from her house and when she rushed towards the house, she saw the accused-Ravikumar alias Kutti Ravi running away from her residence. She saw that deceased came out of their house in flames. She raised alarm and several neighbours came to the spot and put off the fire with the help of a blanket. The deceased narrated the incident to PW-2 that the accused along with his girl friend Mala alias Mallesi committed house trespass with the intention to outrage the modesty of the deceased and since she resisted, the accused-appellant at the instigation of Mala poured kerosene over her and set her on fire. The deceased thereafter was taken to the government hospital at Hosur. PW-9 Dr. Jayraman Raju, the resident doctor admitted her at 5.45 p.m. PW-9 gave intimation to the police and immediately thereafter the Head Constable Govindraj (since deceased) came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the deceased (Exh. P-9). The doctor gave a certificate that the deceased was conscious at that time and that he had translated her version given in Telugu to Tamil so as to enable the constable to record the statement. The statement was received at the police station and a case was registered under Section 376 read with Sections 511 and 307, IPC. PW-9, doctor intimated to the Judicial Magistrate PW-8 (Thiru. Muthuraj) of the incident who in turn came to the hospital and recorded the dying declaration (Exh. P-4) of the deceased at 6.35 p.m. on the date of occurrence. PW-9 (doctor) translated the dying declaration given by the deceased in Telugu to Tamil and also certified that at the time of giving the dying declaration she was conscious and in a fit state of mind to give the dying declaration. Later on Pushpa succumbed to her injuries and died on 21-1-98 at 4.30 p.m. in the government hospital, Hosur. PW-10 (R. Naresh) conducted the autopsy on the body and issued the post-mortem certificate. The following injuries were found on the deceased :- External Injuries :
"Grade 4 dermo epidermal burns extending as shown in figure, in front of chest and abdomen burns upto muscle deep-deep burns. Pus formation on both axilla and in thigh region present."
The doctor opined that Pushpa died due to septicaemia. He had opined that on account of 90% burn injuries suffered by the injured, septicaemia would have been caused amid in the ordinary course of events, which could have caused her death.
(3.)The case of the prosecution is primarily based upon the dying declaration of the deceased which found corroboration by the statement of PW-2.


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