Holding

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s acquittal, finding it perverse, and upheld conviction under Section 304(Part‑II) read with Section 34 IPC.

Summary

The appellant, father of the deceased G. Arulmozhi, challenged the acquittal of a married couple (Rama Raghuraman and her husband) by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. The trial court had convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 120‑B IPC for murder, based on circumstantial evidence that the victim died from hammer blows inflicted in the couple's flat. The High Court acquitted them, citing lack of evidence of conspiracy and noting the couple's alleged self‑defence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court failed to consider the incriminating circumstances identified by the trial court, rendering its judgment perverse. It modified the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(Part‑II) read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each to five years of rigorous imprisonment.

Issues considered

The High Court erred in acquitting the accused by not considering the incriminating circumstantial evidence.
Whether the evidence established murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(Part‑II) IPC.
Whether the accused exceeded the right of private defence and thus attracted liability under Section 304(Part‑II) read with Section 34.
Whether the failure to frame a charge under a particular provision caused prejudice warranting reversal of acquittal.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 100, s. 120-B, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304(Part-II), s. 307, s. 34

Subjects

Culpable homicide not amounting to murderCircumstantial evidenceSelf‑defenceSection 304 IPCSection 120-B IPCAcquittal perverseCharge framingPresumption of innocenceAppellate review

Judgment

[2011] 1 S.C.R. 27

S. GANESAN A
.v.
RAMA RAGHURAMAN & .ORS. .
.·{Crimina~ Appeal No. 989 .of 2003) . ·
JANUARY 3, 2011
B
(P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.l

Penal Code, 1860:

s.304(Part-11)134 - Culpable homicide not amounting to c
murder - A married couple beating the victim and causing .
his death - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction by t(ial court
uls 302 rlw s.120-B - Acquittal by High Court - HEl:.D: The
High Court neither dealt with any of the incriminating
circumstances pointed out by the prosecution nor did it 0
address itself to the relevant issues involved in the appeal -
Therefore, judgment of the High Cowt suffers from perversity
and is set aside - Victim died ofinjuries in the house of
accused - Doctor opined that the injuries, whi.f;h could be
caused by the weapon (hammer) found in fhe house of
accused, were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to E
cause the death - The accused were the only pe'rsons who
could have explained as to the circumstances and the manner
in which the victim suffered the grievous injuries on vital parts
of his body - Thus, the court has to draw its own inference
-c
considering the totality of the circumstances - Prosecution did- F
not establish any motive to commit the crime - There are
circumstances in favour of the accused to show that in spite
of the fact that they had committed the offence they did not
intend to kill the dec_eased, but exceeded their right of self-
defence -:- They are accordingly convicted uls 304(Part 1/)134 G
!PC with. a sentence of 5 years RI - Sentence/Sentencing -
Mitigating circumstances - Evidence - Circumstantial
evidence - Criminal Law - Motive - Right of self defence ':'"
.. :~.
·I' I
27 H
.-:.··
28 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.CR.

A· Appeal against acquittal- Constitution of India, 1950 - Article
136. )._ •

Criminal Law:

: · · Framing of cha[ge - Accused charg.ed with offences
8 punishab/f3 u/s 302 read with s.120-B /PC - Conviction by -
Supreme Court uls 304(Part 11)134 /PC - HELD: Unless i
parties satisfy the court that there has been failure of justice •
from non-framing of charge under a particular provision and
some prejudice has been caused to them, conviction under
C such provision of law is sustainable - Penal Code, 1860 - ,
s.304(Part-l/)134. , ·

Respondents 1 and 2 (A-1 and A-2), the wife and the
husband respectively, were prosecuted for causing the
o death of one 'GA', who was known to them and was •
residing in their flat at the time of the occurrence. The .
prosecution case, as revealed from the statement of A-1
made to the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW1), was that
when, on the day of occurrence at about 9_.00 A M, A-1
E went to wake up 'GA', he misbehaved with her and as she
could not get her out of his clutches, she took the
hammer lying in the room and hit him on his head. On
hearing her cries, A-2 reached there and also hit the
victim on his head several times with the same hammer.
A-1 then called the doctor (PW-3) and on his advice both
F the accused took the injured to the hospital. Initially, a
case for the offence punishable u/s s.307 IPC was
registered against both· the accused, but on the death of
\the victim the following day, the case was altered from
s.307 IPC to s.302 IPC. The trial court considered the
G incriminating circumstances, namely, i) the deceased was
with the accused in their flat on the fateful day; ii) the
deceased received fatal injuries in the same flat which .
ultimately led to his ~eath; iii) A.1 approached the doctor
(PW.3), immediately after the incident and brought him to
H
-S-:--OANESAN -v. RAMA RAGHURAMAN & ORS. 29

the flat and PW.3 deposed that the deceased was lying A
-(
in a pool of blood, the doors and windows were closed
. and there was complete darkness inside at 9 O' Clock in
the morning; ivl the weapon i.e., a hammer, (M.0.1 ), seized
at the instance of A.1, though .such a hammer is not

~
. generally fou'ld in the household; v) the seizure of blood B
; stained articles which had been used for mopping/ .
: cleaninQ the place of occurrence; vi) the panchnama.,and
the evidence of PW.3 made it clear that there were the
circumstances of cleaning of the blood of the deceased
before his arrival; that none other than the accused were c
living in that flat and· no other person had an opportunity
to clean the flat; and vii) it was fully established that the
injuries suffered by the deceased could not be caused by
a fall. The trial court found the chain of circumstances
complete and pointing out towards the guilt of the D
~ accused. It rejected the defence case that P.W. 8 had
come to the flat of the accused and quarrelled with the
deceased, and hit him on the head. The trial court
convicted both the accused u/s 302 r/w s.120-8, IPC and
sentenced them to imprisonment for life, but the High
E
Court acquitted them. Aggrieved, the complainant, the
father of the deceased, filed the appeal.
-.._
Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. It is true that unless there are substantial F:
and compelling circumstances, the order of acquittal is
not required to be reversed In appeal. However, In the
instant case, in fact, the High Court neither dealt with any
of the incriminating circumstances pointed out by the

- )'· prosecution before the trial court, nor did it address itself. G
to Jhe relevant issues involved in the appeal. Therefore,
the judgment and order of the High Court suffers from
perversity and cannot be held to be sustainable in law.
The High court failed to appreciate the grievous injuries
H
30 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A suffered by the deceased. PW.18 who conducted autopsy
over the dead body of the deceased, noticed nine ante-
mortem injuries on the person of the deceased. He
__ORine_d that the deceased died due· to head injuries and
those injuries could be caused by a weapon like hammer
B (M.0.1). He further stated that the injuries were sufficient
in the_ ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the
deceased. -
[para 12,13 and 16) [43-F; 41-B-G; 42-A-B]
.

Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of ·
, Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287; Balak Ram & Anr.. v.
" State of U.P., 1975 (1) SCR 753 =AIR 1974 SC 2165; Budh
Singh & Ors. v. ·State of U.P., 2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 715 = .
AIR 2006 SC 2500; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (DJ ,
by his LRs. & Ors., 2008 (6) SCR 1236 = 2008 AIR 2066;
Arulvelu & Anr. v. State, 2009 (14) SCR 1081 = (2009) 10
0 SCC 206; Babu v. State of Kera/a, 2010 (9) SCR 1039 = .
(2010) 9 SCC 189; and Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr. v. ·
State of Maharashtra, 1974 (1) SCR 489 =AIR 1973 SC 2622 ·
- relied on.

E 1.2. The High Court unnecessarily showed misplaced
sympathy in a case where conviction was eminent. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents ar.e
the only persons who could explain as to under what
circumstances the deceased suffered the grievous
F injuries on the vital parts of his body. The court has to
draw its own inference considering the totality of the
circumstances. [para 17] [45-F-H; 46-A]
State of U.P.
I
v. R~m Swarup & Anr., 1975 (1) SCR 409 =
AIR 1974 SC 1570 - relied on.
G
S. GANESAN v. RAMA RAGHURAMAN & ORS. 31

framed, is sustainable in law. Unless the parties satisfy A
-<, the court that there has been a failure of justice from non
framing of charge. under a particular penal provision, and
some prejudice has been caused to them, conviction
under such provision of .law is sustainable. [para 14] [43-
F-H; 44-A] B
Amar Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1973 SC 2221;
_,, Sanichar Sahni v..State of Bihar 2009 (10) SCR 112 =AIR
1 2010 SC 3786; Topandas v. State bfBombay 1955 SCR
881=AIR 1956 SC 33; Willie (William) Slaney v. State of M.P.
1955 ·scR 1140=AIR1956 SC 116; Fakhruddin v. State of c
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1326; State of A.P. v.
Thakkidiram Reddy, 1998 (3) SCR 1088 = AIR 1998 SC
2702; Ramji Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3853; and
Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab, 2005 (5) Suppl. SCR 90
=AIR 2006 SC 191 - relied on. D
~

3.1. In the instant case, the prosecution did not
establish any motive to commit the crime. There is
nothing on record to show as to whether A.1 had
indulged in any physical intimacy with the deceased. The E
evidence of the doctor who examined the deceased,
. remained far from satisfactory and as he changed his
. version, he has been declared hostile. [para 16] [44-F-G]
'
3.2. Though the accused did not plead, if one goes
by the case· of the prosecution, the nature and number F
. of injuries found on the body of the deceased itself
established. that A-1 and A-2 had exceeded their right of
· self-defence. However, the admitted facts remained that

-
· A-1 personally went to the nearby hospital and on the.
r advice of the doctor (PW-3), took the deceased to the G
hospital. They not only got him admitted in the hospital,
.. rather donated their own blood to save his life. A-1
' informed the father of the deceased about his health
conditions. Thus, these are the mitigating circumstances
H
·- ,. .... . ... '

32 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A in the case in favour of the respondents to show that in
spite of the fact that they had committed the offence, they >-
did not intend to kill the deceased. Thus, they are liable ·
to be convicted u/s 304 (Part-11)/34 IPC. The judgment of
the High Court is set aside and that of the trial court
B modified to the extent that the respondents are held
guilty of the offence punishable u/s. 304(Part-ll) r/W s.34
IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment
each. [para 19-20] [46-E-H; 47-A-C]

Case Law Reference:
c
JT 2010 (12) SC 287 relied on para 13
1975 (1) SCR 753 relied on para 13
2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 715 relied on para 13
0
2008 (6) SCR 1236 relied on para 13
2009 (14) SCR 1081 relied on para 13
2010 (9) SCR 1039 relied on para 13
E 2008 (6) SCR 1236. relied on para 13
AIR 1973 SC 2221 relied on para 1.4
2009 (10) SCR 112 relied on para 15

F 1955 ~CR 881 relied on para 15
1955 SCR1140 relied on para 15
AIR 1967 SC 1326 relied on para 15
1998 (3) SCR 1088 relied on para 15
G
AIR 2001 SC· 3853
. . ,,
~005 (5) Suppl.
.

SCR 90
relied on
relied on .
para 15
para 15
-<""(_.

-
H
...
. .J'.

S. GANESAN v. RAMA RAGHURAMAN & ORS. 33

1974 (1) SCR 4&9 · relied on para 17 A
1975 (1) SCR 409 rrelied on . para 18

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 989 of 2003. '
B
From the Judgment & Order dated 13.2.2003 of the High
. Court of Andhr~ Pradesh at Hyderabad, in Criminal Appeal No .
..1088 of 2002. ··

R. Balasubramanian, B. Balaji, R. Rajeswaran for the C
Appellant. '~

V. Mohana for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivereq by

DR. B.S. CHAUHAN; J. 1. This appeal has been
preferred by the complainant, father of the deceased, against
· the judgment and order dated 13.2.2003 in Criminal Appeal No.
·1088 of 2002 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at
Hyderabad acquitting the respondents of the charges under
Sections 302 read with 120-B of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter E
referred to as "IPC") for committing the murder of G. Arulmozhi
by hitting him with a hammer on his head. ..

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are
~ as under: F
(A) Rama Raghuraman (Accused 1)(hereinafter referred
to as 'A~1') made a statement to Mr. V. Narasaiah, Sub-
..
Inspector of Police (PW.1) that on 29.4.1997 at about 9.00
A.M., whet. she tried to-wake up deceased, G. Arulmozhi, G
who was sleeping in the other room of the flat, he
misbehaved with her and thus A-1 tried to get out of his
clutches in order to save herself. As she could not succeed
in her attempt, she got the hammer lying in the room and
hit him on his head. On hearing her cries, her husband
H
34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R.

A · Raghuram&n (A.2) ·came at the spot arid also hit
deceased several times on his head with the same
hammer and thus; the deceased suffered grievous injuries.
Immediately, Rama Raghuraman (A.1) went to the nearby
hospital and inf.ormed Dr. U. Srinivas (PW.3) that her
B brother was seriously injured on the head and s.he brought
him to examine the deceased. Dr. U. Srinivas (PW.3)
1:
came to her flat and after examining the injured, he
advised that he .should be taken to the hospital
immediately. An ambulance was called and with the help
c of two attendants, Rama Raghurama11 (A.1) and .
Raghuraman (A.2) took the injured to the hospital. He was
'
· examined there by the doctors. The doctor also informed
the police, on which Mr. V. Narasaiah, Sub Inspector of
Police (PW.1) reached the hospital and recorded the
D statement of Rama Raghuraman (A.1) and lodged a
complaint to Mr. K. Chakrapani, $tation House Officer, '.
(PW.16).

(8) On receiving such information, Crime No. 235 of 1997
under Section 307 IPC was registered against Rama
E Raghuraman (A.1) and Raghuraman (A.2). However, when
the police came to the hospital to record the statement of
the injured, he was found to be unconscious. Thereafter,
Mr. K. Chakrapani (PW.16) proceeded to the place of ?-'
occurrence and made a rough sketch of the site in the
F presence of witnesses Mr. Kamal Bukhada (PW.6) and
Mr. Premchand (PW.7) and also seized M.Os. 2 to 12
from the place of occurrence. Mr. K. Chakrapani (PW.16)
"· also examined PWs 2 tO 5 and recorded their statements. ·

,G (C) On the next day i.e. 30.4.1997 at about 11.45 P .M., ,1 -'(
Mr. K. Chakrapani (PW.16) received the information that'
G. Arulmozhi had died and, therefore, he.altered the case
from Section 307 IPC. to Section 302 IPC. He conducted '
the inquest over the body of the deceased in presence of
two witnesses. Dr. Ramachander Rao, the Medical Officer
H
S. GANESAN v. RAMA RAGHURAMAN & ORS. 35
[DR. S.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
in NIMS Hospital (PW.9) examined the deceased and A
found four injuries on the person of the deceased. After the
death of the deceased, Dr. M. Ravinder Reddy, the
professor in Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical College,
Hyderabad (PW.18), conducted an autopsy of the de.ad
body of the deceased. s
(D) Mr. T.V. Raja Gopal, Investigating Officer, (PW.17),
.f. took over further investigation and recorded the statements
of a large number of witnesses and submitted the .
chargesheet. The Magistrate committed the matter to the
Sessions Court, wherein the respondents pleaded not C ·
guilty and claimed frial. After concluding the trial and
appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary,
the trial court vide judgment and order dated 9.9.2002 in
Sessions Case No. 40 of 1999 convicted both the
respondents for offences punishable under Section 302 r/ D
w Section 120-B IPC and awarded life imprisonment with
a fine of Rs.5,000/- each and in default of payment of fine,
they were directed to undergo further three months simple
imprisonment.
E
3. Being aggrieved, the respondents preferred Criminal
Appeal No. 1OS~ of 2002 before the High Court of Andhra
..-.. Pradesh at Hyderabad, which has been allowed by impugned
judgment and order dated 13.2.2003. Hence, this appeal.

4. Shri R. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel, duly F
assisted by Shri B. Balaji, for the appellant, has submitted that
· the High Court committed an error by reversing the well
. reasoned judgment and order of the trial court, wherein, in
,. absence of any eye-witness to the incident, both the
>- respondents had been convicted for committing the murder of G
G. Arulmozhi; the chain of circumstances was complete and
each circumstance pointed out towards the guilt of the
respondents. The deceased was in the flat which has been
taken by the respondents on rent. None of them denied their
H
36 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A presence at the relevant point of time, rather they had taken a
false plea that Mr. N. Velayudham, brother-in-law of deceased,
(PW.8), had come on the same day by air at Hyderabad and
had tried to convince the deceased not to live with the '
respondents, instead to get married with the girl of the choice
B of his father, as his family members were under the belief that
he had developed illicit relationship with the accused Rama
Raghuraman (A.1 ). The defence taken by the accused was
contrary to their own case pleaded in the bail application that
the deceased tried to molest Rama Raghuraman (A.1) and,
C therefore, she became wild and lost all control and picked up
a hammer lying in the room and caused injuries to the
deceased. Even if the defence version is believed to be true,
it was a clear cut case of exceeding the right of self defence.
The hammer which was recovered on the disclosure of the
Rama Raghuraman (A.1) from the place of occurrence is not
D generally used in the household. Before calling Dr.. U. Srinivas
(PW.3), the accused had cleaned the blood stained floor. Doors
and .windows. were found closed and there was darkness inside
the flat at 9 O'Clock in the morning. The High Court did not
consider each and every circumstance considered by the trial
court pointing out to the guilt of the accused. Rather the High ,
Court took a sympathetic view and passed a cryptic order
without giving sufficient reasons for acquittal. Hence, the appeal
deserves to be allowed.

5. On the contrary Ms. V. Mohana, learned amicus curiae,
appearing for the respondents-accused, has submitted that
accused persons were highly qualified as both of them passed
their engineering course from llT, Bombay. They developed
love and affection and got married. They had two children at
the time of incident. Their son was five years old and the girl
was 2-1/2 years old. The deceased himself was a computer
engineer and an MBA from Indian Institute of Management,
Ahmadabad. He had opened a company alongwith accused
persons and had the accused had any intention to kill the
deceased, they would not have called Dr. U. Srinivas (PW.3)
,
S. GANESAN v. RAMA RAGHURAMAN & ORS. 37
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
:. and further taken him to the hospital for treatment. The accused A
. Rama Raghuraman (A.1) herself had informed the father of the
· deceased (the present complainant) about his health condition.
There could be no motive for the respondents to harm the
deceased. Investigation has not proceeded in accordance with
law. There was nothing for them to hide. In absence of any B
evidence of conspiracy between the two accused, the High
Court has rightly quashed their-conviction under Section 120·
B IPC. In such a fact-situation, if it cannot be determined as
which of the accused had caused the injuries, conviction of
c
either of them is not sustainable. If the prosecution case is taken
to be true, the respondents had acted in self defence and are
entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Section 100 and
Exception II to Section 300 IPC. The High Court after taking
into consideration all the facts and circumstances, reached the
correct conclusion of acquittal of the accused. Hence, no D
interference is required with the impugned judgment and order
of the High Court.

6. We have considered the rival submissions made by the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the rt:.::ord.

7. Admitted facts available on the record are that Rama
Raghuraman (A.1 ~ and Raghuraman (A.2) had passed out their
engineering course from llT, Bombay and got married nn
10.9.1989. Out of this wedlock they had two children at the time
of incident. They were not having good relations, as is evident F
from the averments contained in the divorce petition filed by
Rama Raghuraman (A.1) against her husband Raghuraman
(A.2) in the Family Court at Madras. The deceased had been
employed in the Indian Oil Corporation as an Executive
Assistant to the Executive Director. The deceased came in
G
1 contact w,ith Raghuraman (A.2) who had his own organization

j known as Pixel Graphics Multimedia at Madras. As the
· business of Raghuraman (A.2) was in trouble, the deceased
helped him financialiy. The deceased resigned from his job and
floated a company, namely, Indian Creations dealing in the H
38 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011) 1 S.C.R.

A Multimedia presentation field alongwith Rama Raghura~an
(A.1 ). The deceased shifted his residence from the Chennai
to Hyderabad and started earning by way of contracts. In the
meantime, Raghuraman (A.2) also joined Rama Raghuraman
(A.1), patching up the differences with her. Admittedly, the
:s incident occurred at the place of occurrence i.e. flat of the
respondents and at the time alleged herein. The defence
pleaded that Mr. N. Velayudham, (PVV.8), had come there and.
as he quarreled with the deceased, he had hjt him on the head. )--

In fact the accused had furnished the same explanation to the
staff at the Nizam's Institute of Medical Sciences, Hyderabad
c on the date of incident i.e. 29.4.1997 (Ex.P-6). This theory had
been rejected by the trial court giving sufficient and cogent
reasons and we do not see any reason to disturb the said
finding of fact. Had it been so, the accused could have informed
the police and also tried to save the deceased or to apprehend
D \
Mr. N. Velayudham, (PW.8) >
8. The inconsistent pleas taken by the accused are
apparent from the FIR that states that the deceased tried to
molest Rama Raghuraman (A.1) when she went to wake him
E up. She got wild and beat him with a hammer. After hearing
the hue and cry, Raghuraman (A.2) came there and also caused
injuries to him. The same plea had been taken by Rama
Raghuraman (A.1) in her bail application dated 8.5.1997. The
contents of the bail application reveal that she was having some
F marital problems with her husband Raghuraman (A.2) which
)Nas in the knowledge of the deceased and, thus, he was
hopeful of getting married to Rama Raghuraman (A.1) as and
when she got separated from her husband, as the divorce
petition was pending on the date of incident. The deceased
' G was not merely the business partner but also a very close friend --.,_
of Rama Raghuraman (A.1) and had fantasies about marrying
her. However, she further pleaded that after causing injuries to
the deceased, they realised wtiaf had happened and had
suffered from utter shock. She immediately went and called a
doctor frpm the nearby hospital and on his advice, shifted the
H
···}

S. GANESAN v. RAMA RAGHURAMAN & ORS .. 39
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
~

dece,.ased to the hospital. The accused gave their own blood A
to him to save his life. Paragraph 11 of the bail application
reads as under :
"The petitioner respectfully submits that even going by the
prosecution case, she comes within the scope of Sec.
8
· 100(3) IPC wherein she exercised her right of self defence
to ward· off the attempts of the deceased to sexually
assault her and rape her. The petitioner submits that what
.,,/
happened was sad and a great tragedy and neither she
nor her husband had any idea that such a sort of thing would
happen. They realised only after the incident happened." c
(Emphasis added)
9. The trial court rejected the evidence of Dr.
Ramachander Rao (PW.9) for giving two different versions with D
regard to the weapons. However, the court considered the
following incriminating circumstances against the accused :
(I) The deceased was with the accused in their flat on the
fateful day.
E
(II) The deceased received fatal injuries in the same flat
which ultimately led to his death.
~'
(Ill) Rama Raghuraman (A.1) approc>ched Dr. U.Srinivas
(PW.3) immediately after the incident and brought him to
F
the flat and Dr. U.Srinivas (PW.3) deposed that the
deceased was lying in a pool of blood and the ·doors and
windows were closed and there was complete darkness
inside at 9 O'Clock in the morning. Unless the accused
1..-.d '.some guilty conscience, there was no need to close
~ all tt10 doors and windows at 9 A.M. G

(IV) The weapon i.e. MO. 1 seized at the instance of Rama
Raghurarrian (A.1 ), though such a hammer is not generally
found in the household. .,,
H
40 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A (V) The seizure of MOs. 2 to 12 i.e. blood stained articles
which consist of sarees, pants of the deceased and other
items which had been used for mopping/cleaning the place
of occurrence.

8 (VI) The panchnama and the evidence of Dr. U.Srinivas
(PW.3) made it clear that there were the circumstances of .
cleaning of the blood of the deceased before the arrival
of Dr. U.Srinivas (PW.3) and as none other than the
accused were living in that flat and as no other person had
an opportunity to clean the flat and had the accused not
c had a guilty conscience, they would not have hurriedly
cleaned the floor to ensure the disappearance of the blood
stains.

(VII) It was fully established that the injuries suffere-.i '.ii the
D deceased could not be caused by a fall.

10. On the basis of the aforesaid incriminating
circumstances, the trial court found the chain of circumstances
complete and the circumstances pointing out towards the guilt
E of the accused and thus convicted them accordingly.

11. The High Court dealt with the case having sympathetic
attitude towards the respondents and decided the appeal in a
very cryptic manner. After making reference to statements of
some of the prosecution witnesses, the High Court reached the
F conclusion that as none of the witnesses had stated anything
regarding the conspiracy being hatched between Rama
Raghuraman (A.1) and Raghuraman (A.2) to do away with the
life of the deceased, the question of their conviction under
Section 120-B IPC ce>uld not arise; inconsistent pleas taken by
G the accused may not come as a help of the prosecution case
as the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable
doubt by leading evidence in support of its case. The High Court
was swayed by the fact ·that_~fter the deceased suffered
injuries, the accused had taken him to the hospital and Rama
H
S. GANESAN v. RAMA RAGHIJRAMAN & ORS. 41
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
Raghuraman (A.1) informed the father of the deceased about A
his health condition.

: 12. In fact, the High Court had not dealt with any of the
\ aforementioned incriminating circumstances pointed out by the
1
prosecution before the trial court. The court failed to appreciate 8
1 the grievous injuries suffered by the deceased. Dr. M. Ravinder

Reddy, Professor in Forensic Medicine, Gandhi Medical
. College, Hyderabad (PW.18), conducted autopsy over the
dead body of the deceased. On examination, he noticed the
following ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased C

(1) Sutured wound 3 ems long obliquely placed over the
left frontal region.

(2) Sutured wound 1-1/2" ems long over right front parietal D
region.

(3) Sutured wound 10 ems long over the right front parietal .
region.

(4) Sutured.wound with surrounding abraded laceration 4 E
x 2-1/2 ems with two sutured over left parietal region.

(5) Sutured wound 4 ems long over posterior left parietal
region.

(6) Sutured wound 5 ems long over the occipital region. F

(7) Three sutured wounds 2 ems 8 ems and 4 ems over
occipital region.

~8) Abrasion 15 x Y-i ems over outer aspect of left upper
>· an1:.
G

(9) Contusion scalp over right frontal right parietal left
parietal left frontal and occipital areas with parietal
haemotoma.
H
42 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 1 S.C.R

A Dr. M. Ravinder Reddy (PW.18) opined that the deceased
died due to head injuries and those injuries could be caused
by a weapon like M.0.1 hammer. He has further stated that all
the injuries mentioned in the above post mortem report are
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of
B the deceased.

13. This Court in Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta
& Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, JT 2010 (12) SC 287,
considered various aspects of dealing with a case of acquittal
C and after placing reliance upon earlier judgments of this Court
particularly in Balak Ram & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1974
SC 2165; Budh Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P., AIR 2006 SC
2500; S. Rama Krishna v. S. Rami Reddy (D) by his LRs. &
Ors., AIR 2008 SC 2066; Arulve/u & Anr. v. State, (2009) 10
SCC 206; and Babu v. State of Kera/a, (2010) 9 SCC H:s9,
D held that:

"22. It is a well-established principle of law, consistently re-
iterated and followed by this Court is that while dealing with
a judgment of acqui~tal, an appellate court must consider
E the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding
as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse
or otherwise unsustainable. Even though the appellate
court is entitled to consider, whether in arriving at a finding
of fact, the trial Court had placed the burden of proof
F incorrectly or failed to take into consideration any
admissible evidence and/or had taken into consideration
evidence brought on record contrary to law; the appellate
court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal
in a case where two views are possible, though the view
of the appellate court may be the more probable one. The
G
trial court which has the benefit of watching the demeanor ·"
of the witnesses is the best judge of the credibility of the·
witnesses.

23. Eyery accused is presumed to be innocent unless his
H guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human
--

S. GANESAN v. RAMA RAGHURAMAN & ORS. 43
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]

right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle A
forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. The
na,ture of the offence, its seriousness and gravity has to be
taken into consideration.

The ~ppellate court should bear in mind the B
presumption of innocence of the accused, and further, that
the trial court's acquittal bo!st.ers the presumption of his
innocence. Interference with the decision of the Trial Court·
in a casual or cavalier manner where the other view is
possible should be avoided, unless there are good
reasons for such interference.
c

24. In exceptional cases where there are compelling
circumstances, and the judgment under appeal is found to
be perverse, the appellate court can interfere with the
order of acquittal. The findings of fact recorded by a court D
- -.\:.
can be held to be perverse if the findings have been
arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by
taking into consideration irrelevant/inadmissible material.
A finding may also be said to be perverse if it is 'against
the weight of evidence', or if the finding so outrageously E
defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality."

-- Thus, unless there are substantial and compelling
circumstances, the order of acquittal is not required .to be
reversed in appeal.
F
( 14. So far as the issue of setting aside the conviction under ;
Section 120-B IPC against both the respondents and not
framing the charge under any other penal provision is concerned
- it has to be considered, as to whether conviction under any
x other provision for which the charge has not been framed, is G
sustainable in law. The issue is no longer res integra and has
been considered by the Court from time to time. The accused
must be aware as to what is the case against them and what
defence they could lead. Unless the parties satisfy the Court
that there has been a failure of justice from non framing of H
~
44 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R.

A charge under a particular penal provision, and some prejudice
has been caused to them, conviction under such provision of
· law is sustainable. (Vide: Amar Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR
1973 SC 2221)

8 15. This Court in Sanichar Sahni v. State of Bihar, AIR
201 O SC 3786, while considering the Issue placed reliance
upon various judgments of this Court particularly in Topandas
v. State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 33; Willie (William) Slaney
v. State of M.P., AIR 1956 SC 116; Fakhruddin v. State of
Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1967 SC 1326; State of A.P. v.
C Thakkidiram Reddy, AIR 1998 SC 2702; Ramji Singh v. State
of Bihar, AIR 2001 SC 3853; and Gurpreet Singh v. State of
Punjab, AIR 2006 SC 191, and came to the following
conclusion :

D "17. Therefore, .................. unless the convict is able to
establish that defect in framing the charges has caused
real prejudice to him and that he was not informed as to
what was the real case against him and that he could not
defend himself properly, no interference is required on
E mere technicalities. Conviction order in fact is to be tested
on the touchstone of prejudice theory."

16. The case is required to be considered in the light of
the aforesaid settled legal propositions.
F In the instant case, the prosecution did not establish any
motive to commit the crime. There is nothing on record to show
as to whether Rama Raghuraman (A.1) had indulged in any
physical intimacy with the deceased. The evidence of the
(
doctor who examined the deceased, remained far from
G satisfactory and as he changed his version, he has been
declared hostile. If the case of the prosecution is taken to be
true, we have to examine as to whether the case of the
respondents falls within the ambit of Section 100 and Exception
II to Section 300 IPC and as to whether the High Court has dealt
I
H
- S. GANESAN v. RAMA RAGHURAMAN & ORS.
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
45

with the same taking into consideration all these incriminating A
circumstances considered by the trial court.

Admittedly, the High Court did not deal with any of the
incriminating circumstances considered by the trial courtJor the
purpose of corwiction of the respondent and did not address 8
Itself to the relevant issues Involved In the appeal. Therefore,
the judgment and order of the High Court cannot be held to bti ..
sustainable In law and it suffers from perversity. "

17. In Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622, this court held : · C

" ... Thus too frequent acquittals of the guilty may lead
to a ferocious penal law, eventually eroding the judicial
protection of the guiltless. For all these reasons it is true
to s.ay, with Viscount Simon, that "a miscarriage of justice D
may arise from the acquittal of the gui!ty no less than from
the conviction of the innocent ... " In short our jurisprudential
enthusiasm for presumed innocence must be moderated
by the pragmatic need to make criminal justice potent and
realistic. A balance has to be struck between chasing E
chance possibilities as good enough to set the delinquent
free and chopping the logic of preponderant probability to
punish marginal innocents. We have adopted these
cautions in analysing the evidence and appraising the
soundness of the contrary conclusions reached by the
F
courts below. Certainly, in the last analysis reasonable
doubts must operate to the advantage of the appellant. .. "

We are of the considered view that the High Court
unnecessarily shown misplaced sympathy in a case where
;x conviction was eminent. G

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the
respondents are the only persons who could explain as under
what circumstances the deceased suffered the grievous injuries
H
46 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 1 S.C.R. ...

· A on the vital parts of his body. The court has to draw its own
inference considering the totality of the circumstances. r-
18. In State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup & Anr., AIR 1974 SC
1570, this Court held:
B "....... the Civil Law rule of pleadings does not
govern the rights of an accused in a criminal trial. Unlike
in a civil case, it is open to a criminal court to find in
favour of an accused on a plea not taken up by him and
by so doing the Court does not invite the charge that it
c has made out a new case for the accused. The accused
may not plead that he acted in self-defence and yet the
Court may find from the evidence of the witnesses
examined by the prosecution and the circumstances of
the case either that what would otherwise be an offence
D is not one because the accused has acted within the strict
confines of his right of private defence or that the offence
is mitigated because the tight of private defence has
been exceeded .. ... "

E 19. Though the accused did not plead, if we go by the case
of the prosecution the nature and number of injuries found on
the body of the deceased itself established that Rama
Raghuraman (A.1) and Raghuraman (A.2) had exceeded their
right of self defence. However, admitted facts remained that the
F respondents No.1 personally went to the nearby hospital and
on the advice of Dr. U. Srinivas (PW.3), had taken the
deceased to the hospital. They not only got him admitted in the
hospital, rather donated their own blood to save his life.
Respondent No.1, Rama Raghuraman informed father of the
deceased about his health conditions. Thus, these are the
G mitigating circumstances in the case in favour of the
r~pondents to show that in spite of the fact that they had
committed the offence they did not intend to kill the deceased.
Thus, they are liable to be convicted under Section 304 Part-II
IPC read with Section 34 IPC.
H
S. GANESAN v.: RAMA RAGHURAMAN & ORS. 47
[DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, J.]
20. In view of above, appeal succeeds and is allowed. A
Judgment and order dated 13 ..2.2003 passed by the High Court
of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal No. 1088
of 2002 is hereby set aside and the judgment and order dated
9.9.2002 in Sessions Case No. 40 of 1999 passed by the trial
court is modified to the extent that respondents are held guilty s
for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II r/w Section
34 IPC and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment
each. There is nothing on record to show as to whether the
respondents have served any period during the trial or during
the pendency of their appeal before the High Court. In case, C
they have served some period, it shall be set-off in accordance
with law.

Before parting with the case, we record our appreciation
for the efforts made by Ms. V. Mohana, learned advocate, for
rendering full assistance to the Court on being appointed as D ·
amicus curiae.

R.P. Appeal allowed.

-