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
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
