K MARUDHUPANDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MURDER for gain is not uncommon. 1.1 To gain wrongfully, the offender while committing the theft, kills a person, hence, it is a heinous offence. 1.2. Not only the property but the precious life of an individual is involved in the criminal act and thereby the mens-rea as the motive are deemed to have been established without any further proof.

(2.) IN this case, the appellant is convicted for theft, kidnapping and murder. 2.1. Dissatisfied with the Judgment in S.C.No.490 of 1999 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Court - 1, Madurai, the appellant is now questioning the legality and the correctness of the conviction and the sentence passed by the Trial Court. 2.2. The learned Addl. Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 302, 380, 454, and 364 of the I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years, five years and seven years respectively for the remaining offences. 2.3 The grievance of the appellant is that the trial Court convicted him contrary to law by accepting the insufficient circumstantial evidence on record and there is no direct evidence. 2.4 Before we proceed to discuss the detailed and lengthy arguments of Mr. M.P.Rajan, the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the appellant, we have to examine the facts in this case and the law on the subject and the principles emerged there from since settled by the Apex Court in similar such cases and then to apply the same in the facts and circumstances of this case in order to ascertain whether there are any merits in the arguments of the learned Counsel or whether the impugned judgment is to be confirmed. 2.5 Thus, we first deal with the facts.

(3.) 7 Point No.1 7.1 PW.15, Thiyagarajan, Doctor held the autopsy over the body of the deceased on 29.7.1998 at 3.00 p.m. i.e. two days after the death of the deceased and found the following injuries: i)?Oblique cut injury back of scalp left side occipital 10 cms?2 cms?bone deep above downwards cutting the underlying bone and brain 8 cms?1cm?2cms with adjoining area full of extravasated blood clots seen. ii)?Oblique cut injury on the back of right forearm 8cms?2cms?bone deep below upwards. iii) Multiple abrasions anterior abdominal wall 8cms?4 cms. 7.2 The post-mortem Doctor opined that the death is due to Cranio Cerebral injury. 7.3 Thus the evidence of PW.15 and the contents of Ex.P.8 clearly establishes that the deceased was killed. 7.4 In fact, the defence did not dispute about it. The case of the defence is that the accused is not the offender. 7.5 Hence, we hold that the death of the deceased is homicide.