Page 1

1

[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.

Page 2

2

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

Page 3

3

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.

Page 4

4

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.

Page 5

5

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

Page 6

6

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