advocatemmmohan

My photo

ADVOCATEMMMOHAN -  Practicing both IN CIVIL, CRIMINAL AND FAMILY LAWS,Etc.,

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - FOR KNOWLEDGE IN LAW & FOR LEGAL OPINIONS - SHARE THIS

Friday, January 31, 2014

Sec.302 and sec. 201 of I.P.C. - Circumstantial Evidence - Accused like step father - killed his partner child by administrating poison food - took the boy from school - children supported this fact - last seen theory - took room in a hotel in different name - Hotel persons identified the accused in Identification parade - Handwriting expert proved the writing is that of accused - postmortem of dead body found in hotel reveals that the death was due to poison - chain completed - Apex court dismissed the criminal appeal = N.S.Nagendra …Petitioner Vs. State of Karnataka …Respondent = 2014 (January part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41190

    Sec.302 and sec. 201 of I.P.C. Circumstantial Evidence - Accused like step father - killed his partner child by administrating poison food - took the boy from school - children supported this fact - last seen theory - took room in a hotel in different name - Hotel persons identified the accused in Identification parade - Handwriting expert proved the writing is that of accused - postmortem of dead body found in hotel reveals that the death was due to poison - chain completed - Apex court dismissed the criminal appeal =

  whether it is the petitioner who had  taken
the room in the hotel, the hotel register containing the hand-writing and  a
note book containing  the  admitted  hand-writing  of  the  petitioner  were
seized and sent to the hand-writing expert.  As per the report of the  hand-
writing expert, hand-writing in the hotel register  and  that  in  the  note
book are of the same person which clearly connects  it  to  the  petitioner.
Further, mother of the deceased (PW6) admitted  her  relationship  with  the
petitioner.

7.    From the aforesaid testimony, it becomes abundantly clear  that  there
is a complete chain of events, proving the guilt of the  petitioner  and  he
could be the only person who had committed the crime.

8.    As mentioned above, as per the post-mortem report child  has  died  of
poison and the death is homicidal.  The deceased had attended the school  on
16.9.2003.  Therefrom, he was taken away  by  the  petitioner,  as  per  the
unshaken testimony of two school children viz. PW3 and PW4.  The  fact  that
he was taken to the hotel at Rangapatnam the  same  evening,  stands  proved
from the testimony of PW1, supported by the hand writing of the deceased  on
the hotel register, proved through hand writing expert.  The  deceased  was,
thus, last seen in the company of the petitioner.   PW1  also  categorically
stated that the petitioner was seen leaving  the  hotel  at  10.30  p.m  and
whereafter he had not returned.  On next day at 7.30 a.m.  in  the  morning,
the boy was found dead in the room.  All this clearly  proves  beyond  doubt
that it is the petitioner only who committed the murder of the child.   Even
motive stands established which is accepted by the PW6 herself,  namely  her
relationship with the petitioner.  The petitioner wanted  to  ease  out  the
boy who was becoming an eyesore in their relationship.  Pertinently, in  his
statement under Section 313  Cr.P.C.  the  petitioner  has  not  denied  the
seizure of note book and his signature.
9.    Learned counsel for the petitioner  made  desperate  attempt,  but  in
vain, to find certain loopholes in the testimonies of the  witnesses.  After
going through the statements of witnesses and cross-examination, we  are  in
agreement with the judgments of the  courts  below.   There  is  hardly  any
substantial question of law.   This Special Leave  Petition  is,  therefore,
dismissed in limine.   
2014  (January part) judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41190

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, A.K. SIKRI
                                            [Non-Reportable]

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 5369 of 2013

N.S.Nagendra                                              …Petitioner

                 Vs.

State of Karnataka                                        …Respondent

                        J U D G M E N T

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1.    The petitioner is convicted for the offences punishable under  Section
302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the trial court.  For  offence
under Section 302 IPC, he is sentenced  to  undergo  life  imprisonment  and
also imposed a fine of Rs.2,000/-.  For  committing  offence  under  Section
201 IPC, the petitioner is sentenced  to undergo rigorous  imprisonment  for
7 years and also to pay a fine of Rs.500/-.  Both the sentences are  ordered
to  be  run  concurrently.   The  petitioner  appealed  to  the  High  Court
challenging the conviction.  However, the  High  Court  has  dismissed  said
appeal maintaining the  conviction  and  sentence  of  the  petitioner  vide
impugned judgment dated 12th January 2010.  Not  satisfied  and  undeterred,
present Special Leave Petition is filed  questioning  the  validity  of  the
conviction, as indicted above.

2.    The charge against  the  petitioner  was  of  murdering  a  boy  named
Madhusudhan (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) aged about 12 years  who
was studying in a Boarding School at Bellur, Karnataka.  His mother was  one
Smt.Sujatha (PW6) who is the wife  of  PW9.   It  appears  that  because  of
strained relations developed between Sujatha and her  husband,  her  husband
had deserted her about 7 years prior to the incident.   The  petitioner  had
developed  intimacy  with  Sujatha  and  were  in  a  live-in  relationship.


3.    As per the prosecution story, the accused found the deceased to be  an
impediment in his relationship with Sujatha.  On the  fateful  day  i.e.  on
16.9.2003 he went to the school of the deceased and took the  deceased  with
him from Bellur to a hotel at Srirangapatnam.  He hired a room in the  lodge
giving his name K.Raju, resident of Rajajinagar, Bangalore  and  signed  the
hotel register in the said name.  The deceased and accused  stayed  in  room
No.12 in that  lodge.   The  allegation  of  the  prosecution  is  that  the
petitioner administered poisonous food to the  child,  who  after  consuming
the said food, died.  The petitioner left the hotel at around at 10.30  p.m.
 On the next morning at about 7.30 a.m., the  Manager  of  the  hotel  (PW1)
found through window of the room that the child was lying on the floor.   He
lodged the complaint whereupon police came.  After the door of the room  was
broken open, it was found that child was lying dead.

4.    The cause of death, as per the  post-mortem  report,  was  respiratory
failure on account of consumption of zinc phosphate/poison.  The  death  was
described as homicidal.  The petitioner  was  arrested  on  5.11.2003  after
investigation.  Challan  was  filed;  the  petitioner  was  charged  of  the
offence under Section 302 and 201, IPC; prosecution evidence led;  statement
of the petitioner under Section 313,Cr.P.C.  recorded;  the  petitioner  did
not produce any defence witness; and after hearing  the  matter  verdict  of
guilt against the petitioner was returned by the learned Sessions Judge  and
he was convicted in the manner described above. This has been upheld by  the
High Court.

5.    We may record that after the accused was arrested on 5.11.2003 he  was
identified by PW1 in the identification parade which was conducted  by  I.O.
(PW13). The prosecution had  produced  two  school  children  as  witnesses,
namely PW3 and PW4 who deposed to the effect  that  after  the  school,  the
deceased was taken away by  the  petitioner  on  16.9.2003.   PW1,  who  had
identified the petitioner, stated in his  deposition,  that  the  petitioner
had come to the hotel on 16.9.2003  around  at  5.30  p.m.  along  with  the
deceased and took room No.12.  He also signed  the  hotel  register  stating
his name to be K.Raju.

6.    In order to find out as to whether it is the petitioner who had  taken
the room in the hotel, the hotel register containing the hand-writing and  a
note book containing  the  admitted  hand-writing  of  the  petitioner  were
seized and sent to the hand-writing expert.  As per the report of the  hand-
writing expert, hand-writing in the hotel register  and  that  in  the  note
book are of the same person which clearly connects  it  to  the  petitioner.
Further, mother of the deceased (PW6) admitted  her  relationship  with  the
petitioner.

7.    From the aforesaid testimony, it becomes abundantly clear  that  there
is a complete chain of events, proving the guilt of the  petitioner  and  he
could be the only person who had committed the crime.

8.    As mentioned above, as per the post-mortem report child  has  died  of
poison and the death is homicidal.  The deceased had attended the school  on
16.9.2003.  Therefrom, he was taken away  by  the  petitioner,  as  per  the
unshaken testimony of two school children viz. PW3 and PW4.  The  fact  that
he was taken to the hotel at Rangapatnam the  same  evening,  stands  proved
from the testimony of PW1, supported by the hand writing of the deceased  on
the hotel register, proved through hand writing expert.  The  deceased  was,
thus, last seen in the company of the petitioner.   PW1  also  categorically
stated that the petitioner was seen leaving  the  hotel  at  10.30  p.m  and
whereafter he had not returned.  On next day at 7.30 a.m.  in  the  morning,
the boy was found dead in the room.  All this clearly  proves  beyond  doubt
that it is the petitioner only who committed the murder of the child.   Even
motive stands established which is accepted by the PW6 herself,  namely  her
relationship with the petitioner.  The petitioner wanted  to  ease  out  the
boy who was becoming an eyesore in their relationship.  Pertinently, in  his
statement under Section 313  Cr.P.C.  the  petitioner  has  not  denied  the
seizure of note book and his signature.
9.    Learned counsel for the petitioner  made  desperate  attempt,  but  in
vain, to find certain loopholes in the testimonies of the  witnesses.  After
going through the statements of witnesses and cross-examination, we  are  in
agreement with the judgments of the  courts  below.   There  is  hardly  any
substantial question of law.   This Special Leave  Petition  is,  therefore,
dismissed in limine.
                                                            ………………………………….J.
                    (K.S.Radhakrishnan)

                                                           …………………………………..J.
                                           (A.K.Sikri)
New Delhi,
January                               29,                               2014



No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.