Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2011. Case: Sangili Vs State of Tamil Nadu. Supreme Court (India)

Case NumberCriminal Appeal No. 639 of 2011
JudgesJasti Chelameswar and Arjan Kumar Sikri, JJ.
IssueIndian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) - Section 302
Judgement DateSeptember 10, 2014
CourtSupreme Court (India)


Jasti Chelameswar, J.

  1. This appeal arises out of the judgment dated 6th January 2010 of the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 506 of 2004.

  2. By the impugned judgment, the High Court confirmed the Appellant's conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 10000/- Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "Indian Penal Code") awarded by the Sessions Court, Madurai in Sessions Case No. 490 of 2003.

  3. The deceased Muthuramaligam was a high school going child studying Plus-Two. PWs 1 and 2 are his parents. PW-5 Ramathilaga another young girl was also a student of the same school where the deceased was studying. The Appellant herein was working for the father of PW-5.

  4. According to the case of the prosecution, on 12.6.2002 at about 5.15 p.m., there was a phone call from the Appellant herein to the deceased which was initially picked up by PW-1. According to PW-1 the caller identified himself by his name (same as the Appellant). After some conversation with the caller the deceased went out by bicycle informing his parents that he would return soon. Unfortunately, he never returned. On 14.06.2002 at about 10 a.m., PW-1 went to the Oomachikulam Police Station and lodged a complaint Ex. P1 to the effect that Muthuramaligam was missing.

  5. PW-12 Head Constable received the complaint and registered a Crime No. 204 of 2003. PW-15 Tr. Ponnuchamy is the Inspector of Police of the abovementioned police station.

  6. On the same day, the Appellant was arrested at about 8 p.m. According to the prosecution, the Appellant made a confessional statement which led to certain recoveries. The admissible portion of the statement made by the Appellant is Ex. P5. On the basis of such a statement, PW-15 altered the First Information Report (FIR) and registered the case Under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and dispatched the FIR to the Court. Thereafter, he went led by the accused to the spot from where the dead body of the deceased was recovered around 9.45 p.m. Thereafter, he got the inquest conducted and prepared a report Ex. P18 around 2.30 a.m. i.e. in the early hours of 15.06.2002. The dead body was sent to the hospital for post mortem examination. PW-15 thereafter proceeded to the house of the Appellant and seized MOs 7 and 8 (two knives) from the backyard of the house of the Appellant. They proceeded further to the house of PW-9 at around 3.30 a.m. at the instance of the Appellant and recovered the bicycle, M.O. 1. Subsequently, Nagarajan (A2 who was acquitted by the trial court) was arrested. After completion of the investigation, PW-16 Inspector of Police who succeeded PW-15 (in office) filed the charge sheet.

  7. In all prosecution examined 16 witnesses apart from marking 18 documents and producing 8 material objects to establish the guilt of the Appellant herein. The prosecution case rests on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances are:

    (i) That the deceased was trying to woo PW-5 which was objected to by the Appellant herein and in that context there was an earlier incident of beating up of the deceased by the Appellant;

    (ii) That the deceased left the house on the fateful day on receiving call...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT