MOORTHYversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU

A                               MOORTHY
                                    v.
                          STATE OF TAMIL NADU

                                  MAY 9, 1988

B                   [A.P. SEN AND L.M. SHARMA, JJ.]

       Indian Penal Code, 1860: Section 302-Appellant convicted of
  murder of lady and son-Death sentence by trial court-Confirmed by
  High Court-Courts below-Whether right in imposing death penalty--
  Mitigating circumstances-Unfortunate relationship between deceased,
C an elderly lady and appellant, in mid 20s-Sudden spurning by
  partner-Appellant experiencing disappointment of discarded /over-
  Vicious effect of film picturising violence seen by appellant-Supreme
  Court converting death sentence to life imprisonment.

        The prosecution case was: The appellant, who was working under
D P.W.l, developed intimacy with P.W.l's wife. However, on being
  found out hy her daughter, P. W .2, the wife was forced to terminate this
  relationship.

        Then, on 20.7.1985, the appellant saw a late night film containing
  murder scenes of four women and told his friend, P.W.5, that he would
E take revenge for the betrayal by a lady. Thereafter he went to the house
  of P.W.l and attacked the wife with knife, and killed her son when he
  intervened. He also caused grievous injury to the daughter.

          The appellant was convicted by the trial court under s. 302 IPC
    for double murder of the woman and her son and also under s. 307 IPC
F   for attempting to kill her daughter and for house trespass in order
    to commit the aforesaid offences, and sentenced to death and life
    imprisonment respectively.

          The High Court dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the death
    sentence.
G
          In the appeal by special leave, it was contended that although the
    appellant was not in such a mental state as to attracts. 84 of the IPC, he
    was certainly so agitated on account of the circumstances beyond his
    control that he should he spared from the extreme penalty of death.

H         Allowing the appeal,
                                       212
         MOORTIN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU !SHARMA, l.I                 223

      HELD: The deceased was an elderly lady with two children who
                                                                            A
took a defiant attitude, defending her conduct when she was rU"st
confronted by her own dauehter, which suggests that the unfortunate
relationship between her and the appellant, in his mid 20s, had
developed with her encouragement. When suddenly spurned by his
partner, the appellant must have experienced the disappointment of a
discarded lover. His mental agitation was further fuelled by the movie,     B
showing mnrder after murder. And when this upsets a youngman,
already vulnerably disturbed, the society cannot be completely absolved
of sharing the responsibility for the tragedy resulting from the vicious
effect of tilms pi~turising violence. [225F-H; 226A-BJ

       Considering all these circumstances, and having regard to the fact
that when commanded by P.W.16, the appellant stopped immediately,
                                                                            c
thereby resulting in the life of the daughter being saved, and that he
did not attempt to escape, the sentence of death passed against the
appellant under s. 302 Indian Penal Code is converted to imprisonment
for life. [226B-C]                                             ·
                                                                            D
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 317·of 1988.

     From the Judgment and Order dated 23.1.1987 of the Madras
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 408 of 1986 and R. T. 6 of 1986.
                                                                            E
    U.R. Lalit, V. Krishnamurthy and V. Balachandran for the
Appellant.

      A. V. Rang am for the Respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                            F

      SHARMA, 'J. The appellant was convicted by the trial court for
double murder IDf a woman, Jayasambal by name and her son Vijay
Anand, and wa:> sentenced to death. He was further convicted under
s. 307, I.P.C. for attempting to kill Vijay Anand's sister Kavitha
Priyadarsini an•d for house trespass in order to commit the aforesaid       G
offences, and vvas sentenced to life imprisonment under each of the
two counts. His appeal before the Madras High Court was dismissed
and the sentence of death confirmed. The present Special Leave Peti·
tion was filed against this judgment.

      2. At the 1preliminary he'!ring we were satisfied that the appel·     H
    224         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                I 1988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A !ant was rightly convicted as mentioned earlier. We, however, directed
  not(ce to be issued on the question of sentence. Accordingly, limited
  special leave is granted.

        3. According to the case of the prosecution, Dr. Manickasamy
  (P.W.t), the husband of the deceased Jayasambal and father of
B deceased Vijay Anand, was a doctor working in the Government
  Hospital at Sadras and the appellant as a Leprosy Inspector under h;m.
  The doctor had taken a second wife whom he was keeping in another
  house with their 3 children. The appellant developed close association
  with the doctor's family and became intimate with Jayasambal. The
  daughter Kavitha Priyadarsini (P.W.2), one day in 1984, found to her
C shock, her mother Jayasambal and the appellant in a compromising
  position, and raised a stiff protest with her mother. Jayasambal
  attempted to justify her romance on the ground that the doctor P. W. 1
  was also having two women in his life. When Kavitha threatened that
  she would report the matter to her father, she (Jayasambal) relented
  and agreed to terminate the illicit relationship on which Kavitha pro-
D mised silence. Thus forced by her daughter, Jayasambal attempted to
  avoid the company of the appellant and to repel his advances. In the
  meantime the family had changed its residence and the younger sister
  of Jayasambal joined them and started living with them,. She was
  examined in the case as P.W.3.

E       4. On 20.7.1985 the appellant went to a late night cinema show
  with his friend P.W.5. The film contained murder scenes of four
  women. When the appellant came out of the cinema hall after
  midnight he told his friend that he would take reveng•~ for the betrayal
  by a lady. He did not give any detail. P .W.5 stated at the trial that after
  dropping him at the dispensary, where he lived, the appellant left by a
F bicycle; and he learnt the next morning about the death of Jayasambal.

        5. According to the further prosecution stmy the appellant
  knocked the door of P. W .1 soon thereafter. The doc:tor came out of
  his house and the appellant suddenly rushed into his bnd room, locked
  the door from inside and attacked Jayasambal with a knife.'The boy
G Vijay Anand aged about 12 years, got up and attempted to intervene
  and was killed. His elder sister Kavitha (P.W.2) also b•.ecame a victim
  and suffered grievous injury. The doctor, P.W.1, amd Jayasambal's
  younger sister (P.W.3) raised shouts which attracted P ,W.16, a Police
  Inspector living in the neighbourhood. The Police Imspector saw the
  accused through the window with a knife in his hand and ordered him
H to stop and to open the door. The appellant obeyed.
          MOORTHY v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU !SHARMA, J.]                    225

      6. Both the trial court and the High Court, on appeal, closely
                                                                                 A
examined the evidence and came to the conclusion that the prosecu-
tion story was correct. A plea of insanity under s. 84, I.P.C. laken on
behalf of the accused was rejected. We have examined the evidence
and ihe Circumstances and are in agreement with the view of the High
Court.

      7. However, the question is whether the courts below were right
in imposing death penaliy on the appellant or whether the appropriate
sentence would be imprisonment for life. Prima facie the case appears
to be a very serious one where two persons were killed and a ihiid bile
seriously injured. The death of a 12 year boy trying to save hrs mother
and the serious Injury to his elder sister leaves one shocked. Mr. Lalit;
the learned counsel for the appellant contended that alth<iugh the               t
appellant was not in such a mental state so as to attracts. 84, I.P.C., he
was ceriaiitly so agitated oil account of circumstances beyond his control
that he should lie spared from the extreme penaliy of death. He relied
tipon the decision in Srirangan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1978] 2 SCR
270 wheteirl a lenient view was taken in favour of the appellant, a
young toddy tapper who while teturning afier his work "tense in
state", was j:frovoked arid "wenr into tantrums and inflicted triple
killings.;;

       8. We have closely examined the circumstances in which the
 tragic event took place. The deceased hyasambal at the time of murder           E
 was about 35 years old with a teen-aged daughter and a 12 year old
son, and the appellant was in his late 20s. She was united with lhe
doctor through love marriage, but the husband later took another wife
 and got 3 children from her. The appellant was employed in the has'
pita! where the doctor i>.w.i was posted. In this background the
·linfotturiate .illicit relationship developed between the deceased and          F
 the appellant when the latter was irl his mid 20s. The deceased was ah
elderly lady with two children who took a defiant attitude, defending
 her conduct when she was fits! confronted by her own daughter, which
 suggests that the unfortunate relationship had developed with her
 encouragement. When suddenly spumed by his partner, the appellant
 must have experienced the disappointment of a discarded lover. We do            G
 not suggest that the erring wife should not have corrected herself nor
 can the persistence Of the appellant in the situation be appreciated, but
 we are trying to analyse his psychology .,His mental agitation was further
 fuelled l:iy the movie, showing murder after murder. The vicious effect
 of films pictutising vioience irt detail on imptessioilitble inirids has been
 subject of setious concern fot some time now, but uriforiunateiy no
    226        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               11988] Supp. 1 S.C.R.

A   effective step has been taken so far tO curb the growing tendency of a
    section of the film industry to cash on human weakness. And when this
    upsets a youngman, already vulnerably disturbed, the society cannot
    be completely absolved from sharing the responsibility of the resulting
    tragedy. Proceeding further with the facts in the present case, we find
    that when commanded by P. W. 16, the appellant stopped immediately,
B   as a result of which the life of Kavitha was saved, opened the door,
    came out of the room and did not at.tempt to escap;.

          9. Considering the above circumstances appearing from the pro-
    secution evidence, we are of the view that the sentence of death passed
    against the appellant under s. 302, Indian Penal Code, should be
C   converted to imprisonment for life. Let that be done and let all the
    sentences of imprisonment run concurrently.

    N.P.V.                                                Appeal allowed.