Ramachami vs State Rep. By State Prosecutor
- SCC(2008) 15 SCC 122
- Neutral2008 INSC 1207
- SCR[2008] 15 SCR 46
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where circumstantial evidence is relied upon to establish guilt, the circumstances must be such as to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation on any other reasonable hypothesis; in the present case, the court found the circumstances sufficiently established that the accused was alone with the deceased on the night of the incident, knew where the deceased kept his money, was last seen with the deceased, subsequently absconded for an extended period, and led police to the recovery of the weapon used, were sufficient to constitute such circumstances and to support a conviction for dacoity and offences against the person. Where the nature and severity of injuries inflicted in a homicide are such as to fall short of an intention to cause death or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, the offence may be reduced from one punishable under Section 302 IPC to one punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC even where the conviction for homicide is otherwise made out on circumstantial evidence, and the sentence imposed may be adjusted accordingly.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Ramachami ..... Appellant
VERSUS
State rep. By State Prosecutor ..... Respondent
JUDGMENT
DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the
Kerala High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable
under Sections 392 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC'). He faced
trial for offence punishable under Section
..2/-
.2.
324 IPC, but he was found to be not guilty of that charge. Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.10,000 were imposed. It was directed that in case the fine was collected, the same was
to be paid to the widow of Kuttappan (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased').
3. The prosecution version essentially rested on circumstances. The trial court
found that the circumstances were sufficient to hold the accused guilty. Accordingly,
conviction, as noted above, was recorded. In appeal, the High Court did not find any
substance in the plea of the appellant and upheld the conviction.
4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
prosecution has not proved that the appellant was, at any point of time, employed at the
hotel and present case is one where the wrong person has been picked up and has been
convicted. Alternatively, it was submitted that an offence under Section 302 IPC is not
made out.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the
judgment of the High Court.
..3/-
.3.
6. The circumstances, which were pressed into service by the prosecution to
connect the accused with the offences, are as follows :
(i) the deceased Kuttappan and the accused Ramachamy used to sleep in the hotel itself in the night and on 3.2.1998 in the night they two were alone in the hotel (the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3).
(ii) The deceased used to keep his money in the pocket of his brief and this fact was known to the other inmates of the hotel, including the accused (the version of PW1 and PW2).
(iii) On 4.2.1998 early in the morning by 6 O'clock when PW1 and PW2 reached the hotel as usual for work, they saw Kuttappan lying down sustaining injuries on the floor of the hotel near the cash counter (the deposition of PW1 and PW2).
(iv) The accused who was along with the deceased in the hotel on the prevision night was not seen anywhere near there and he had been absconding since then till his arrest (evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3).
..4/-
.4.
(v) the police were able to recover M.O.I. (the wooden stick allegedly used for beating the deceased Kuttappan) from a particular place in the hotel premises on the basis of the statement of the accused while he was in custody (the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and PW12).
7. The circumstances clearly establish that the accused was employed in the
hotel and used to sleep in the hotel and on the night of occurrence, both the deceased and
the accused were alone in the hotel. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 in this regard
are clear, cogent and credible. Additionally, the accused and the deceased were last seen
together on the previous night. The appellant was arrested long after the incident, i.e.,
on 29.11.1998 and was absconding during the aforesaid period. The circumstances,
according to us, are sufficient to hold the accused guilty.
8. However, considering nature of the injuries, we are of the view that the
appropriate conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC and custodial sentence of 8 years
would meet the ends of justice. It is stated that the appellant has already suffered
custody of more than 7= years.
..5/-
.5.
9. So far as the conviction under Section 392 IPC and the sentence imposed are
concerned, there is no infirmity therein to warrant interference. Both the sentences in
respect of Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 392 IPC shall run concurrently.
10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. ......................J. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT]
......................J. [C.K. THAKKER]
......................J. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA]
NEW DELHI October 22,2008.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free