Supreme Court of India
MURUGANversusSTATE OF TAMIL NADU
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 775
- Decided
- 7 July 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- ARIJIT PASAYAT
Holding
The trial court and High Court correctly convicted the accused; the appeal is dismissed.
Summary
The appellant Murugan, employed as an assistant in the ground‑floor shop of PW‑1, was observed by PW‑1 through a window strangling PW‑1’s wife, who later died. PW‑1 chased the accused, who fled and later was arrested; blood‑stained clothing of the accused was recovered. The trial court convicted Murugan under IPC s.376(1) read with s.511 (rape) and s.302 (murder), a decision upheld by the Madras High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the credibility of the eyewitness testimony, the admissibility of the recovered clothing, and the accused’s claim of an affair, and found no infirmity in the lower courts’ findings. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction and sentences of ten years rigorous imprisonment and life imprisonment.
Issues considered
- Whether the eyewitness testimony of PW‑1 is sufficient to sustain a conviction under s.376(1) read with s.511 and s.302 IPC
- Whether the recovery of the accused’s blood‑stained clothing, based on his confessional statement, is admissible and creates a presumption of guilt
- Whether the delay of PW‑1 in reporting the incident after informing persons at the nearby church affects the reliability of his testimony
- Whether the accused’s defence of having an affair with the victim and his denial of participation in the murder is credible
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 376(1), s. 511
Subjects
rapemurderconvictionevidenceeyewitness testimonyconfessionappellate reviewIndian Penal Codecriminal law
Judgment
[2008] 10S.C.R. 78
A MU RU GAN
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 997 of 2008)
JULY 7, 2008 )-
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 - s. 376(1) rlw s. 511 ands. 302 -
Rape and murder - Conviction under - Husband found ac-
c cused lying over his wife and strangulating her resulting in
her death - Conviction uls. 376(1) rlw s. 511 ands. 302 by
courts below - Justification of- Held: Justified - Courts below
analysed the evidence in detail and rightly concluded with re-
gard to involvement of the accused. ,,.._
D According to the prosecution case, PW-1 was en-
gaged in business and had employed accused as an as-
sistant. The business was carried out in the ground floor
and accused was also residing therein whereas PW-1 and
his family were residing at first floor. On the fateful day,
E PW-1 heard an alarming noise from the ground floor and
tried to open the door but found it locked from inside. PW-
1 then peeped through the window and found the ac-
cused taking position on his wife who was lying on the
ground and strangulating her. Thereafter, the accused l
F opened the door from inside and ran away. PW-1 along
with PW-2 chased the accused. PW-1 went to the church
and informed the people over there about the occurrence.
He came back to his house and found his wife dead. PW-
1 lodged a complaint. Investigation was carried out. The
doctor conducted post mortem. Witnesses were exam-
G
ined. The tri~I court convicted the appellant u/s. 376(1)
read with s. 511 ands. 302 IPC and imposed rigorous im-
prisonment for ten years and life imprisonment. High
Court upheld the order. Hence the present appeal.
H 78
MURUGAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 79
~
Dismissing the appeal, the Court A
HELD: 1. The trial court and the High Court analysed
the evidence in great details and came to the right con-
clusion about involvement of the accused. There is no
__,
infirmity in the reasoning of the trial court and the High
Court to warrant any interference. [Para 11] [84-8] B
2.1 PW 1 chose to chase the accused along with PW 2
and having found some people in the church, which is
nearby, informed them about the occurrence and thereafter
came back to his house to verify the fate of his wife. PW 1 c
obviously was in a state of shock having seen the accused
strangulating his wife. It is quite common for a person un-
der shock to share his grief to the persons who are found
close by. It is not as if PW 1 rushed straight to the police
station after informing certain pers·ons in the church with-
D
out even verifying the fate of his wife. [Para 8] [83-A,8 & C]
2.2 The accused was arrested on 6.9.2000 and only
on the basis of his confessional statement his apparels
had been recovered. It is not as if the door was opened
by PW 1 immediately after witnessing the occurrence E
through the window. The accused, who was inside the
house, would have had time to remove his apparels,
which were found blood stained, to put it in a safe place
r in the house. Further it will not take much of a time to re-
move the clothes by a person who was in a hurry to es- F
cape from the scene of crime. In view of the above, there
is nothing to doubt the recovery of the apparels of the
accused made by the investigating officer. The recovery
at the instance of the accused raises presumptions of guilt
as against him. [Para 9] [83-C,E & F] G
2.3 It is an unfortunate case where the accused came
out with a repulsive counter version that he had some
affairs earlier with the victim, and when he was found
embracing the wife of PW 1, it was witnessed by PW 1. He
has stated that he was not the author of the murder. If at H
80 SUPREME; COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A all the victim had an affair with a stranger residing at a far
off location, it would not have come to light. But stand of
the accused, who lived in the ground floor for five years
to be having an affair without being noticed is too hollow
to be accepted.[Para 10] [83-G,H; 84-A]
B CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
NO. 997 of 2008
From the final Judgment and Ord~r dated 14.6.2006 of
the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.
c 1547 of 2003
Prasanthi Prasad, (SCLSC) for the Appellant.
R. Shunmugasundaram, S.J. Aristotle and V.G. Pragasam
for the Respondent.
D The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division
Bench of the Madras High Court upholding the conviction of the
E appellant for offences punishable under Section 376(1) read
with Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the
'IPC') and Section 302 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and Life Impris-
onment for two offences. As noted above, fine was also im-
F posed with default stipulation.
3. Sans unnecessary details the prosecution version in a
nutshell is as follows:
Tamilselvi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') is
G none other than the ·wife of Andrews (PW1 ). They had been
blessed with three children. Except Romeo (PW 10) the other
two children were staying in a hostel.
PW 1 was carrying on groundnut cake business in the
ground floor of his house at Gandhi Nagar, Chennai. PW 1, the
H victim and their daughter Romeo were staying in the upstairs of
MURUGAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 81
~
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]
the said house. The accused Murugan was employed as an A
assistant in PW1 's shop and he was staying in the ground floor
itself where the business was carried on. The deceased used
i.
to get his ration of food from PW 1 .
..J
On 3.8.2000 at about 1.30 p.m. the victim went to the
ground floor for the purpose of handing over the ration of food 8
to the accused. P.W.1 waited for some time, but the victim had
not returned. He came down to the ground floor and heard an
alarming noise. When he attempted to push the outer door of
the ground floor, he found that it was locked from inside. P.W. 1
went around the house and peeped through the window. He c
found to his shock that the accused, taking position on his wife
who was lying on the ground, attempted to strangulate her. There-
after the accused opened the door from inside and sped away
from the scene of occurrence.
D
..... P.W.1 gave a chase accompanied by Elumalai-P.W.2. The
accused took shelter in a nearby bush. He went to the church
and informed the people over there. He came down to his house
and found his wife dead. Thereafter P.W.1 went to Kolathur Police
Station and lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) to the sub-Inspector of
Police, P.W.9, who was present over there. The latter registered E
a case in Crime No.1050/2000 for the offence under Section
302 IPC and prepared printed FIR Ex. P9 and despatched the
same to the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned and the
copies thereof to the higher officials.
F
The Inspector of Police, Mr. Natrajan-P.W.13, who was
lncharge of the said police station when Varadarajan, the regu-
lar Inspector of Police P.W.14 was on leave, took up the case
for investigation on receipt of a copy of the FIR and rushed to
the scene of occurrence and prepared the rough sketch-Ex.P-
..... J
G
12. He also prepared the observation Mahazar-Ex. P-2 in the
presence of Chellaiah, P.W.4 and another witness. He held in-
quest on the dead body and prepared the inquest report, Ex.
P13. At about 8.30 p.m. on the said day, in the presence of the
aforesaid witnesses, P.W.13 recovered thali Chain M.0.4 and
H
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A packing material-M.0.7 under relevant mahazar, Ex. P-3. He
entrµsted the dead body to the Head Constable Mohan, P.W.8
for the purpose ·of taking the same to the doctor for conducting
postm'ortem examination.
Dr. Deivasigamnai, P.W.7, conducted autopsy on the dead
8 body of the victim at about 11.40 a.m. on 4.9.2000 and found
the following injuries and symptoms on the dead body:
"A well defined incomplete oblique ligature abrasions mark
in front of the neck at the level of thyroid cartilage, 16 x 1
c ems on the front', the ligature abrasion was 6 ems below
the chin and·6 ems about the suprasternal noted and the
ligature abrasion was absent on the back of the neck. The
subcutaneous soft tissues underlying the ligature abrasion
were found congested.
D 2) Inward compression fracture of right horn of the hyoid
bone found with extravasations of blood in the surrounding
soft tissues. ·
Heart: Intact. Normal Trachea: Empty. Stomach contained
200 ml. of brown fluid with partly digested cooked rice
E
particles. No definite smell."
4. After investigation charge sheet was filed. As the ac-
cused ,pleaded innocence, he was put on trial.
5. In order to establish the prosecution version 14 wit-
F nesses were examined. Placing reliance or the evidence of
PWs. 1 & 2, the trial court found the accused guilty and con-
victed and_ sentenced. The High Court upheld the conviction and
the sentence.
G .6. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appel-
la~t submitted that the defence version has- been erroneously
discarded by the High Court. He has stated that the conduct of
PW1 after allegedly having seen the accused with his wife un-
natural and should not have been relied upon. The presence of
H PW2 .at the spot had a1$0 not been explained
'\ MURUGAN v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 83
, [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J]
7. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported A
the judgment of the High Court.
8. PW 1 has chosen to chase the accused along with PW
2 and having found some people in the church, which is nearby,
J informed them about the occurrence and thereafter came back
to his house to verify the fate of his wife. PW 1 obviously was in 8
a state of shock having seen the accused strangulating his wife.
It is quite common for a person under shock to share his grief to
the persons who are found close by. It is not as if PW 1 rushed
straight to the police station after informing certain persons in
the church without even verifying the fate of his wife. c
' 9. The accused had been arrested on 6.9.2000 and only
on the basis of his confessional statement his apparels had
\
been recovered. It is contended by the learned counsel for the
accused that the accused, who was spotted committing the
' D
crime, would not have taken some time to hide his apparels at
a safe place. It is the case of the prosecution that PW 1 having
witnessed the occurrence by peeping through the window came
down to the doorway with a view to open the door. The door
was opened from inside by the accused. It is not as if the door
was opened by PW 1 immediately after witnessing the occur- E
rence through the window. The accused, who was inside the
house, would have had time to remove his apparels, which were
found blood stained, to put it in a safe place in the house. Fur-
:r
ther it will not take much of a time to remove the clothes by a
person who was in.a hurry to escape from the scene of crime. F
In view of the above, there is nothing to doubt the recovery of
the apparels of the accused made by the investigating officer.
The recovery at the instance of the accused raises presump-
tions of guilt as against him.
G
10. It is an unfortunate case where the accused has come
... out with a repulsive counter version that he had some affairs
earlier with the victim, and when he was found embracing the
wife of PW 1, it was witnessed by PW 1 . He has stated that he
was not the author of the murder. If at all the victim had an affair
H
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 10 S.C.R.
A with a stranger residing at a far off location, it would not have
come to light. But stand of the accused, who lived in the ground
floor for five years to be having an affair without being noticed
is too hollow to be accepted .
. 11. Trial court and the High Court have analysed the evi-
B.• dence in great details and have come to the right conclusion
about involvement of the accused. VVe do not find any infirmity
in the reasoning of the trial court and the High Court to warrant
any interference.
12. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
N.J. App~al d.ismissed.
I
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "rape"Sign in to search