NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
LAWS(SC)-2018-4-55
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
April 16,2018
NAVANEETHAKRISHNAN
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
PADALA VEERAREDDY VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]SELVI VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
MADHU VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
RAFIKUL ALAM SK SIDDIQUE SK SUJIT ALIAS NAFIJUL MD SALIM ANDSK MORSHED ALIAS MORAI VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
BHAJAN SAHA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-4-13] [REFERRED TO]SAHEB JAMUDA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-26] [REFERRED TO]
INDRAJIT SINHA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-10-75] [REFERRED TO]
RAJKUMAR DEWANGAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-1-154] [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHARAM VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-1-120] [REFERRED TO]
HETRAM NAYAK VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2024-2-85] [REFERRED TO]
SUBHASH CHANDRA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-4-144] [REFERRED TO]
HONNAPPA, S/O KOTRAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SAGAR RURAL POLICE SAGARA [LAWS(KAR)-2018-5-181] [REFERRED TO]
G V MALATESH S/O G B VENKATESH VS. STATE BY SATHNUR POLICE RAMANAGARA DIST [LAWS(KAR)-2018-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2021-4-74] [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA SEN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2020-8-79] [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-4-10] [REFERRED TO]
MERCY C. LALHMINGMAWII VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2021-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
GANPAT KUMAR VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-1-111] [REFERRED TO]
NAKUL SAH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-32] [REFERRED TO]
BHIM SINGH, VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-152] [REFERRED TO]
LALIT MOHAN BANRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-177] [REFERRED TO]
RENU MEENA VS. STATE OF SIKKIM [LAWS(SIK)-2019-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
SURAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-12-149] [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KRISHNA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2022-5-36] [REFERRED TO]
DHARMARAJ VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2024-3-498] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ODISHA VS. LABA @ KALIA MANNA [LAWS(ORI)-2020-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-12-6] [REFERRED TO]
HULAS VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-1-22] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTKU VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-6-40] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPAK KUMAR YADAV VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
DODDABASAPPA @ GIDDA DODDABASAPPA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-6-554] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2023-3-133] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL SOREN VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-2-112] [REFERRED TO]
SANOJ KUMAR SAHU VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-2-148] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. VISHNU [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-146] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2019-7-101] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT [LAWS(MPH)-2024-5-24] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL VS. STATE OF DELHI MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS [LAWS(SC)-2022-11-24] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL BARI VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-10-58] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VERMA VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-10-102] [REFERRED TO]
NAKUL SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-148] [REFERRED TO]
AKHILESH KUMAR MISHRA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-12-125] [REFERRED TO]
NARDE PURTY VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD SAO VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2021-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN KERKETTA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2020-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDAR RAM RATHIYA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
SAMMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-11-67] [REFERRED TO]
BHUSHAN BANJARE VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-6-76] [REFERRED TO]
SAKHARAM S/O SITARAM BHISE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-9-201] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH DHAKAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-8-31] [REFERRED TO]
DEVENDRA VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2019-7-393] [REFERRED TO]
KIRTAN NAIK VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2019-1-20] [REFERRED TO]
JAFARUDHEEN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(SC)-2022-4-72] [REFERRED TO]
GHANSHYAM TUDU, VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-12-84] [REFERRED TO]
TABREJ KHAN VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
RAJ KUMAR VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-78] [REFERRED TO]
ANIL VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-10-67] [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA MAHADEV CHAVAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-2-24] [REFERRED TO]
MANJUNATHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-6-1503] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN SEBASTIYAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-9-1463] [REFERRED TO]
SATTAR KHAN VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2023-1-110] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH BHIKU SHINDE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2023-9-139] [REFERRED TO]
RAFIQ MIAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-4-128] [REFERRED TO]
KOUSHIK VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2019-10-174] [REFERRED TO]
GHARAU DAS AND ORS. VS. STATE OF C.G. [LAWS(CHH)-2019-8-135] [REFERRED TO]
BAL GOVIND VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-11-66] [REFERRED TO]
SYED SAHIL VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2022-8-620] [REFERRED TO]
MALLIKARJUNA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2023-7-1865] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH BHIMASHANKAR BAGLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2021-12-207] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH CHANDRA TIWARI VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(SC)-2024-11-73] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(SC)-2022-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN ORAON VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-7-81] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH DASU CHAUHAN VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2019-7-20] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDAN VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2022-12-141] [REFERRED TO]
DINESHBHAI VASANTBHAI ALIAS BABALAL KANANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2019-12-330] [REFERRED TO]
JITENDRA @ SONU, SON OF HINCHHA RAM PAL VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2018-6-78] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRASAD YADAV VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2022-5-73] [REFERRED TO]
BHUWAN SINGH DHRUVA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
KITAB SINGH PAIKRA VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2023-7-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN YADAV VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-3-70] [REFERRED TO]
LAKHU VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2019-11-159] [REFERRED TO]
PREM BAHADUR VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-7-80] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-9-44] [REFERRED TO]
PRADEEP HORO VS. POLICE INSPECTOR, MARGAO POLICE STATION, MARGAO, GOA [LAWS(BOM)-2020-8-157] [REFERRED TO]
GANGARAM SAHU VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2018-8-29] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITHA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2022-6-1478] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
R.K. Agrawal, J. -
(1.)The above appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 23.11.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 639 and 688 of 2009 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants herein against the order dated 18.09.2009 passed by the Fast Track Court No. II, Salem, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2009 wherein learned Additional District & Sessions Judge convicted the appellants herein under Sections 302 read with Section 34, Section 364 and Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `the IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with substantive sentences under the IPC.
(2.)Brief facts:
(a) A First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 41 of 2008 at PS Yercaud, District Salem dated 16.02.2008 got registered by Mahimaidoss (PW-8) stating that on 14.02.2008, John Bosco (since deceased), who was employed as the driver in his travel agency, along with one Madhan (since deceased), took a Maruti Van from him but did not return for two days.
(b) On the very next date, i.e., on 17.02.2008, one more FIR got registered by one Asokan bearing No. 88 of 2008 stating that when he went to irrigate his fields, he found a white colour sack floating in the well. He immediately informed the same to the local police and when the sack was opened, a male body with hands tied at the back was found.
(c) On the basis of FIR dated 16.02.2008, Crime No. 41 of 2008 was registered at Yercaud Police Station and during the pendency of investigation, FIR No. 88 of 2008 got registered and a body was found which was identified as of John Bosco.
(d) During investigation, Sivashankar (A-1 therein) was apprehended and he confessed about committing the crime along with (A-2 and A-3) appellants herein stating that they abducted John Bosco and his friend Madhan and taken them in the Maruti Van being driven by John Bosco to one of the relatives of Accused No. 2 therein where they caused death of John Bosco and Madhan by strangulating them one by one using a rope and drowned their bodies in water streams using gunny bags. A-1 also took the investigation officer to the place where the body of Madhan was found in a gunny bag.
(e) After following the due procedure, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Salem and the case was committed to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Salem and numbered as Sessions Case No. 21 of 2009. The Court framed charges under Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34, 201 read with Section 302 and 379 of the IPC.
(f) Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2009, convicted all the accused for the commission of crime under the charging Sections and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
(g) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.09.2009, the appellants-accused preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 639 and 688 of 2009 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2009, dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants herein.
(h) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.11.2009, the appellants herein have preferred these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
(3.)Heard Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the appellants-accused and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the records.
Point(s) for consideration:-
(2.)Brief facts:
(a) A First Information Report (FIR) bearing No. 41 of 2008 at PS Yercaud, District Salem dated 16.02.2008 got registered by Mahimaidoss (PW-8) stating that on 14.02.2008, John Bosco (since deceased), who was employed as the driver in his travel agency, along with one Madhan (since deceased), took a Maruti Van from him but did not return for two days.
(b) On the very next date, i.e., on 17.02.2008, one more FIR got registered by one Asokan bearing No. 88 of 2008 stating that when he went to irrigate his fields, he found a white colour sack floating in the well. He immediately informed the same to the local police and when the sack was opened, a male body with hands tied at the back was found.
(c) On the basis of FIR dated 16.02.2008, Crime No. 41 of 2008 was registered at Yercaud Police Station and during the pendency of investigation, FIR No. 88 of 2008 got registered and a body was found which was identified as of John Bosco.
(d) During investigation, Sivashankar (A-1 therein) was apprehended and he confessed about committing the crime along with (A-2 and A-3) appellants herein stating that they abducted John Bosco and his friend Madhan and taken them in the Maruti Van being driven by John Bosco to one of the relatives of Accused No. 2 therein where they caused death of John Bosco and Madhan by strangulating them one by one using a rope and drowned their bodies in water streams using gunny bags. A-1 also took the investigation officer to the place where the body of Madhan was found in a gunny bag.
(e) After following the due procedure, a charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate No. 5, Salem and the case was committed to the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. II, Salem and numbered as Sessions Case No. 21 of 2009. The Court framed charges under Sections 364, 302 read with Section 34, 201 read with Section 302 and 379 of the IPC.
(f) Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2009, convicted all the accused for the commission of crime under the charging Sections and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life.
(g) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 18.09.2009, the appellants-accused preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 639 and 688 of 2009 before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide judgment and order dated 23.11.2009, dismissed the appeals preferred by the appellants herein.
(h) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23.11.2009, the appellants herein have preferred these appeals by way of special leave before this Court.
(3.)Heard Mr. K.K. Mani, learned counsel for the appellants-accused and Mr. M. Yogesh Kanna, learned counsel for the respondent-State and perused the records.
Point(s) for consideration:-
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.