Criminal Appeal Nos. 455 and 457 of 2004. Case: 1. Murugan @ Settu, 2. Siva S/o Annappan Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu ., [Alongwith Criminal Appeal No. 456 of 2004], 2. State rep. by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu. Supreme Court (India)
| Case Number | Criminal Appeal Nos. 455 and 457 of 2004 |
| Judges | P. Sathasivam and B.S. Chauhan, JJ. |
| Issue | Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 35; Registration of Birth and Deaths Act, 1969 - Section 17; Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 109, 363, 366, 376 |
| Citation | 2011 (5) SCALE 464, AIR 2011 SC 1691, 2011 CriLJ 2948, 2011 (2) Crimes 273 (SC), JT 2011 (6) SC 602, 2011 (3) RCR 35 (Criminal), 2011 (6) SCC 111, 2011 (2) UC 1199, 2011 (5) UJ 3005 (SC) |
| Judgement Date | May 06, 2011 |
| Court | Supreme Court (India) |
Judgment:
B.S. Chauhan, J.
-
All the three appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos. 981 and 986 of 2002, by which the High Court had disposed of the said appeals preferred by the Appellants against the judgment and order of the trial court dated 24.6.2002, in Sessions Case No. 30 of 2000, by which Appellant Murugan @ Settu (A.1) had been convicted under Sections 366 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as `IPC') and awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 and 7 years on those counts respectively. Other Appellants stood convicted under Sections 366 r/w 109 Indian Penal Code and were sentenced for 3 years rigorous imprisonment.
-
FACTS:
(A) The prosecution case reveals that on 11.2.1998 at 9.00 A.M., Murugan @ Settu (A.1) with an intention to marry the minor girl Shankari (PW.4), aged 14 years studying in 8th standard, kidnapped her from S.S.K.V. School, Kancheepuram, by stating that her mother, Parimala (PW.15) was seriously ill and had been admitted to hospital. Shankari (PW.4) took permission to leave the school from her teacher, Rajeshwari (PW.5) and also informed about the said fact to her classmate P. Megala (PW.6).
(B) Shankari (PW.4) was taken by A.1 in an auto bearing No. TN 21 B 6582 to Kamatchi Amman Temple, where Shiva (A.2) also came and both of them took Shankari (PW.4) to Orikai road stating that they were going to the hospital.
(C) On being questioned by Shankari (PW.4), she was threatened by A.1 and A.2 that if she made noise they would spoil her life. She was taken to the house of Smt. Logammal (PW.7), the grand-mother of A.2 at Kaliampoondi, at about 1.00 P.M. They stayed there at night. On 12.2.1998, M.P. Ekambaram (PW.1), father of Shankari (PW.4) lodged an FIR in Crime No. 209 of 1998 that his daughter had gone to attend the school on 11.2.1998 and did not return. Thus, she was missing.
(D) On the same day, i.e. 12.2.1998, Ramalingam @ Ramu (A.3) came from Kancheepuram. All the accused compelled Shankari (PW.4) to get married with A.1 and, accordingly, A.1 tied `Thali' in Shankari's neck. A.1 and A.3 took Shankari (PW.4) to Bangalore leaving A.2 at Vellore. They went to New Lingapuram, Bangalore, to the house of Rajeshwari (PW.9), sister of A.3 and stayed there up to 24.2.1998. During this period, A.1 raped the prosecutrix Shankari (PW.4) many times. They reached Chennai and stayed in the house of Vijayalakshmi (PW.12).
(E) As there had been an FIR in respect to the fact that Shankari (PW.4) had been missing, Pugazhendhi (PW.19), Inspector of Police, Kanchi Taluk Police Station after receiving the information that A.1 and prosecutrix Shankari (PW.4) would appear before the court at Kancheepuram reached there, and made a written application before the Judicial Magistrate, Kancheepuram for sending A.1 and Shankari (PW.4) for medical examination. The application was accepted.
(F) Dr. Parasakthi (PW.18) examined Shankari (PW.4) and issued a medical certificate, Ex.P-10 to the effect that she had been sexually assaulted. Dr. K. Gururaj (PW.20) examined A.1 on 26.3.1998 and issued certificate Exs.P-14 and P-15 to the effect that he was not impotent. He also examined Shankari...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cr. Appeal No. 720 of 2008. Case: Sonu Kumar Vs State of H. P. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...cases. [Satpal Singh, (2010 AIR SCW 4951: 2010 Cri LJ 4283) (supra) and Murugan alias Settu v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 6 SCC 111]: (AIR 2011 SC 1691: 2011 Cri LJ 2948). (Vide: Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 1057: (1982 Cri LJ 994); and State of Bihar and Ors. v. Sri Ra......
-
Cr. Appeal No. 357 of 2008. Case: State of H.P. Vs Rajak Mohammad. Himachal Pradesh High Court
... ... 5-NL/7 of 2007/2004 titled State of HP Vs. Rajak Mohammad decided on ... that thereafter Ashok Kumar informed at Police Station Bilaspur about kidnapping of prosecutrix ... He has stated that on dated 25.8.2003 Inspector Vijay Kumar accompanied by ASI Harjeet Singh and ... that consent of minor is immaterial in criminal offence under Section 363 I.P.C. It is well ... reported in AIR 2011 (6) SCC 111 titled Murugan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu that if the document was ... ...
-
Cr. Appeal No. 104 of 2013. Case: Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of H.P.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...discharge of his public official duty and is relevant fact under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. It was held in case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1691 titled Murugan alias Settu v. State of Tamilnadu that documents made ante litem motam can be relied upon safely when such documents are a......
-
RSA No. 156 of 2003. Case: Urmila Devi Vs Baldev Raj. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...in which such book, register, or (record or an electronic record) is kept is itself a relevant fact. It was held in case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1691 titled Murugam v. State of Tamil Nadu that public document can be safely relied when public documents are admissible under Section 35 of Indi......
-
Cr. Appeal No. 720 of 2008. Case: Sonu Kumar Vs State of H. P. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...cases. [Satpal Singh, (2010 AIR SCW 4951: 2010 Cri LJ 4283) (supra) and Murugan alias Settu v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2011) 6 SCC 111]: (AIR 2011 SC 1691: 2011 Cri LJ 2948). (Vide: Umesh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1982 SC 1057: (1982 Cri LJ 994); and State of Bihar and Ors. v. Sri Ra......
-
Cr. Appeal No. 357 of 2008. Case: State of H.P. Vs Rajak Mohammad. Himachal Pradesh High Court
... ... 5-NL/7 of 2007/2004 titled State of HP Vs. Rajak Mohammad decided on ... that thereafter Ashok Kumar informed at Police Station Bilaspur about kidnapping of prosecutrix ... He has stated that on dated 25.8.2003 Inspector Vijay Kumar accompanied by ASI Harjeet Singh and ... that consent of minor is immaterial in criminal offence under Section 363 I.P.C. It is well ... reported in AIR 2011 (6) SCC 111 titled Murugan Vs. State of Tamil Nadu that if the document was ... ...
-
Cr. Appeal No. 104 of 2013. Case: Sanjeev Kumar Vs State of H.P.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...discharge of his public official duty and is relevant fact under Section 35 of Indian Evidence Act 1872. It was held in case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1691 titled Murugan alias Settu v. State of Tamilnadu that documents made ante litem motam can be relied upon safely when such documents are a......
-
RSA No. 156 of 2003. Case: Urmila Devi Vs Baldev Raj. Himachal Pradesh High Court
...in which such book, register, or (record or an electronic record) is kept is itself a relevant fact. It was held in case reported in AIR 2011 SC 1691 titled Murugam v. State of Tamil Nadu that public document can be safely relied when public documents are admissible under Section 35 of Indi......