Ramuthai vs State, Rep. By Inspector Of Police & Anr

RAMUTHAI ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2317 OF 2009

NALLAN @ SANTHANAM ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2317 OF 2009

The appellant Nallan is stated to have died during

the pendency of this appeal in this Court while undergoing

his sentence. We, accordingly, dispose of the appeal as

having abated.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2316 OF 2009

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 2

1. This appeal arises out of the following facts:

1.1 Malaisamy the deceased, son of P.W. 1, was a

silversmith and was working in that capacity in some shop.

Palani Kumar, son of A1 and A2 i.e. Nallan and Ramuthai

respectively was a friend of the deceased. As Palani Kumar

was a person of dubious credentials A1 and A2 were not

happy with the association and they would often tell the

accused that they would not permit their son to go with

them and some incident had taken place a week prior to the

present one and there was a great deal of unpleasantness

on that account. At about 9:00p.m. on the 21st September,

2002, P.W. 1 Ramanathan went to the nearby shop to

purchase a beedi while the deceased followed him for

purchasing a mosquito coil. After the deceased had made

his purchase and was proceeding towards his house he found

A1 to A6 armed with cutting weapons standing and waiting

for him. A2, the appellant herein, exhorted her co-

accused to kill Malaisamy on which the other accused

attacked him with their weapons killing him at the spot.

A First Information Report was thereafter lodged by P.W. 1

for offences punishable under Section 302 etc. of the

Indian Penal Code. The trial court on a consideration of

the evidence acquitted A7 and A8 of all charges. The

other accused were however convicted and sentenced under

Section 302 etc. of the IPC and awarded suitable terms of

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 3

imprisonment. An appeal was thereafter taken to the High

Court by the convicted accused and the High Court has, by

the impugned judgment, acquitted A5 and A6 as well. It

appears that A3 and A4 filed no special leave petitions in

this Court whereas A1 and A2 filed Criminal Appeal Nos.

2316 and 2317 of 2009. The appeal filed by A1 Nallan has

already been disposed of by us as having abated and we are

now left with the appeal of Ramuthai, the appellant

before us.

2. It will be seen that the appellant has been

convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the

IPC. The basis of her conviction lies in the evidence of

four eye witnesses Pws. 1 to 4. The High Court has found

that P.Ws. 2 and 4 who were close relatives of the

complainant party could not be relied upon and the entire

case therefore hinged on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3,

the father and the uncle of the deceased.

3. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, the learned counsel for the

appellant has, accordingly, argued that in the light of

this uncertain evidence and in the background of the fact

that the appellant had been charged for exhorting her co-

accused to kill the deceased and no weapon had been

recovered from her, it could not be said that she had

abetted the murder. He has further pointed out that some

emphasis had been laid by the High Court on the statement

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 4

of P.W. 3 who could be said to be an independent witness

as he had deposed that he and his brother P.W. 1 had not

been on speaking terms for 25 years and as such his

evidence could be relied upon. Mr. Muth Raj has, however,

pointed out that from the statement of P.W. 18, the

Investigating Officer, it was not clear as to whether the

statement of P.W. 3 had been recorded under Section 161

Cr.P.C. or not and as such his evidence had to be looked

upon with suspicion. He has finally submitted that the

fact that P.W. 18, the Investigating Officer, bore deep

animosity with A1 and A2 was clear from the record

inasmuch that Palani Kumar aforesaid had died in police

custody and on a complaint made by the appellant, an

inquiry had been conducted not only by the National Human

Rights Commission but also by senior police officers

against him.

4. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, the learned counsel for the

respondent-State has however, supported the judgments of

the trial court and the High Court.

5. We have considered the arguments advanced by the

learned counsel. It is the obligation of the prosecution

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and if a doubt

is cast on the evidence, the benefit thereof must go to

the accused. In the case before us the only part

attributed to the appellant is that she had exhorted her

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 5

co-accused to commit the murder. We find this to be

rather far-fetched as it is apparent that a large number

of persons had come armed to the place of incident and

there was no need for her to exhort them. We also see

that the evidence of P.W. 5 on this aspect appears to be

somewhat ambivalent. The High Court itself has refused to

rely on the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 and as submitted

by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is some

uncertainty with regard to the evidence of P.W.3 as well.

In the light of the fact that P.W. 18 admittedly bore

grievous enmity against A1 and A2 the possibility that he

had roped in A2 to make out a false case to settle

personal scores, cannot also be ruled out.

6. For these cumulative reasons, we find that the

appellant's conviction is unacceptable. We, accordingly,

allow the appeal, set aside the order of the courts below

insofar as the appellant Ramuthai is concerned and order

her acquittal. She is stated to be in custody. She shall

be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any

other case.

......................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 6

......................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA] NEW DELHI AUGUST 02, 2011.

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009

7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2316 OF 2009

RAMUTHAI ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Vide our separate reasoned order, we have allowed

the appeal and ordered the acquittal of the appellant

herein.

It is stated that the appellant Ramuthai is in

custody. She shall be released forthwith if not wanted

in connection with any other case.

The reasoned order shall be separately placed on

record.

......................J [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

......................J [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 8

NEW DELHI AUGUST 02, 2011.