Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     732     OF     2008   

Ramachandran  …..Appellant

Versus

State of Kerala               ....Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T      

Madan     B.     Lokur,     J.   

1. The question before us is whether the appellant  

murdered his wife Remani or whether she committed suicide.  

We are in agreement with the view taken by the Trial Judge  

and affirmed by the High Court that the case was one of  

murder and not of suicide.

The facts:

2. The appellant and Remani had been married for about  

four years.  They had two children, the second child having  

been born just about three months before the murder of  

Remani.  

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 1 of 14

Page 2

3. There was a history of matrimonial discord between the  

parties. Remani believed that the appellant was having illicit  

relations with the wife of his elder brother which seems to  

have been the cause of conflict. At one stage Remani had even  

left the matrimonial home.  However, on an application having  

been filed by the appellant for restitution of conjugal rights,  

the matter was settled between the parties and Remani went  

back to the matrimonial home. Unfortunately, it appears that  

even thereafter, matrimonial disputes took place between the  

parties.

4. According to the prosecution, on the intervening night of  

10th and 11th March, 1998 at about 1.00 a.m. there was a  

quarrel between the appellant and Remani. Subsequent to the  

quarrel, the appellant forcibly administered to Remani a highly  

toxic carbonate compound called Furadan which is a strong  

pesticide used for plantain cultivation and was kept in a bottle  

in the house.

5. On being forcibly administered the poison, Remani ran  

out of her house and fell down on the eastern side where it is  

alleged that the appellant smothered her by closing her nose  

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 2 of 14

Page 3

and mouth with his hands. The poison and smothering of  

Remani resulted in her death.

6. Early morning, Remani’s parents were called and her  

father lodged a First Information Report at about 12.30 p.m. in  

which he stated that the appellant used to inflict physical  

torture on Remani and due to the continuous harassment she  

consumed poison and committed suicide.

7. After investigations, the police filed a report in which it  

was concluded that the appellant had murdered Remani. On  

committal, the appellant denied the charge, pleaded not guilty  

and claimed trial.

8. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and  

produced several documents and material objects in support  

of its case including a bottle containing Furadan.

Decision of the Trial Court:  

9. The material witnesses for the prosecution before the  

Trial Court were PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-7 and PW-10.   

10. PW-1 Bhaskaran stated that Remani was his daughter  

and that her husband used to beat her up everyday and scold  

her. Remani had told him that the appellant was having illicit  

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 3 of 14

Page 4

relations with the wife of his elder brother. The witness was  

not specifically questioned about the FIR given by him in  

which he had stated that Remani had committed suicide by  

consuming poison. He, however, stated that he had informed  

the police that Remani was administered poison by her  

husband, that is, the appellant.

11. PW-2 Thankamalu, mother of Remani, confirmed that  

there were frequent and daily quarrels between the appellant  

and Remani. She stated that Remani told her that the  

appellant would get drunk and beat her up.  She also stated  

that Remani told her that the appellant was having illicit  

relations with the wife of his elder brother. According to this  

witness, Remani was capable of doing some typing jobs and  

bringing up her children. As such, there was no doubt that, if  

need be, Remani could look after herself and would not  

commit suicide.

12. PW-3 Ragini is the sister of Remani. She also confirmed  

the frequent if not daily physical abuse inflicted by the  

appellant on Remani.

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 4 of 14

Page 5

13. PW-7 Hamza is a neighbour of the appellant and Remani.  

He too confirmed the physical abuse that Remani was  

subjected to by the appellant.

14. PW-8 Kumhadi is the father of the appellant.  He stated  

that on the intervening night of 10th and 11th March, 1998 he  

and the appellant had gone to the temple to watch a ‘Koothu’  

program. They came back at about 5 or 5.30 a.m. in the  

morning and that is when they discovered the body of Remani.  

This witness was declared hostile and cross-examined. The  

Trial Court did not give much credence to the testimony of this  

witness and did not accept the alibi.

15. The most important witness is PW-10 Dr. Rajaram.  He is  

an Associate Professor of Forensic Medicine, Medical College,  

Kozhikode and he conducted the post mortem examination on  

the body of Remani.  He stated that she had as many as 22  

abrasions and contusions on various parts of her body.  He  

stated, on the basis of the chemical examination report, that  

Remani died due to the combined effect of smothering and  

carbofuran poisoning. He was cross-examined and asked  

whether the abrasions on Remani’s body could have been  

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 5 of 14

Page 6

caused on her falling down on a hard surface and struggling  

for existence.  He replied that in view of the injuries on the  

back of her body, the possibility was highly remote.  He also  

stated that if her back had come in contact with a hard object,  

her clothes would have had a tear.  He further stated that the  

nature of injuries including one on the back of the elbow  

clearly suggested that Remani had offered some resistance.

16. On the above material, the Trial Court was of the opinion  

that even though the case was one of circumstantial evidence,  

there was enough material on record to show that it was only  

the appellant who had murdered Remani by forcibly  

administering Furadan and then smothering her.  It may be  

mentioned that Furadan is a carbofuran and its ingestion can  

cause death within 10 minutes.

17. The Trial Court was also of the view that the appellant  

had a motive for murdering Remani in as much as they would  

have frequent quarrels on the suspicion of Remani that the  

appellant had illicit relations with the wife of his elder brother  

who was residing in the same house.

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 6 of 14

Page 7

18. The Trial Court discounted the theory that the appellant  

and his father had gone to the temple to witness ‘Koothu’. It  

was noted that there was nothing to support such a  

statement.  In this context, it was observed by the Trial Court  

that Remani was in hospital from 08.03.1998 till 10.03.1998  

due to some vomiting and illness and it was very unlikely that  

immediately after her discharge from hospital on 10.03.1998  

the appellant would have left her alone in the house and gone  

to the temple where he stayed overnight, if indeed he cared for  

her.  

19. On the basis of the above facts, the Trial Court held the  

appellant guilty of having committed the murder of Remani  

and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.  

Decision of the High Court:

20. Feeling aggrieved, by the conviction and sentence  

awarded by the Trial Court, the appellant preferred Criminal  

Appeal No. 663 of 2003 which was dismissed by a Division  

Bench of the High Court of Kerala by Judgment and Order  

dated 30.11.2004.

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 7 of 14

Page 8

21. The High Court took into consideration the evidence of  

the witnesses, the strained matrimonial relations between the  

appellant and Remani as also the medical evidence for  

affirming the conviction and sentence.

22. The High Court noted that the unnatural death of  

Remani was not in dispute. The principal question before the  

High Court was whether her death was due to homicide or  

suicide. In this regard, the High Court placed great emphasis  

on the unambiguous evidence of Dr. Rajaram to the effect that  

Remani’s death was caused by smothering and administration  

of toxic Furadan which was found in her mouth and pharynx.  

As testified by the doctor, the various injuries on Remani,  

though minor, indicated that the administration of Furadan  

was forcible and that she had resisted this.  

23. In view of the fact that the appellant had a motive to  

murder Remani and there was clear medical evidence  

suggesting smothering and poisoning of Remani, the High  

Court upheld the conviction and sentence.

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 8 of 14

Page 9

Discussion and conclusions:

24. In Sudama Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2002) 1 SCC  

679 this Court considered the scope of interference in a  

criminal appeal with concurrent findings of fact. It was  

observed as follows:

We are not unmindful of the fact that this Court under  Article 136 of the Constitution seldom interferes with the  factual findings recorded by two concurring Courts but if  this Court is satisfied that the High Court has committed  a serious error of law and that there was substantial  miscarriage of justice, this Court could interfere with the  concurring findings of the High Court and that of the  Trial Court. This Court also does not normally enter into  a reappraisal or review of the evidence unless the  assessment of the evidence by the High Court is vitiated  by an error of law or procedure or there was misreading  of evidence.”

25. Similarly in Dalbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1976) 4  

SCC 158 the principles for interference were culled out and  

stated by S. Murtaza Fazal Ali, J as follows:

“Thus the principles governing interference by this  Court in a criminal appeal by special leave may be  summarised as follows:

(1) that this Court would not interfere with the  concurrent finding of fact based on pure appreciation of  evidence even if it were to take a different view on the  evidence;

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 9 of 14

Page 10

(2) that the Court will not normally enter into a  reappraisement or review of the evidence, unless the  assessment of the High Court is vitiated by an error of  law or procedure or is based on error of record,  misreading of evidence or is inconsistent with the  evidence, for instance, where the ocular evidence is  totally inconsistent with the medical evidence and so  on;

(3) that the Court would not enter into credibility of the  evidence with a view to substitute its own opinion for  that of the High Court;

(4) that the Court would interfere where the High Court  has arrived at a finding of fact in disregard of a judicial  process, principles of natural justice or a fair hearing or  has acted in violation of a mandatory provision of law  or procedure resulting in serious prejudice or injustice  to the accused;

(5) this Court might also interfere where on the proved  facts wrong inferences of law have been drawn or where  the conclusions of the High Court are manifestly  perverse and based on no evidence.”

26. In the same decision, A.C. Gupta, J concurred but  

cautioned as follows:

“The decisions of this Court referred to in the Judgment  of my learned brother lay down that this Court does not  interfere with the findings of fact unless it is shown that  "substantial and grave injustice has been done". But  whether such injustice has been done in a given case  depends on the circumstances of the case, and I do not  think one could catalogue exhaustively all possible  circumstances in which it can be said that there has  been grave and substantial injustice done in any case.”

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 10 of 14

Page 11

27. Keeping these principles in mind, we have considered the  

evidence on record and find no exceptional circumstance or  

reason to disturb a concurrent finding of fact by both the  

Courts.  

28. However, we need to deal with the contentions urged by  

learned counsel for the appellant. His first contention was that  

even though there may have been strained matrimonial  

relations between the appellant and Remani, those differences  

were patched up when Remani came back to live with the  

appellant in the matrimonial home.  His second contention  

was that the appellant had no ill will towards Remani in as  

much as when she was hospitalized from 8.03.1998 to  

10.03.1998, he had looked after and paid the medical bills.  

Under these circumstances, there was no reason for him to  

have murdered Remani.

29. We are of the view that there is no substance in either of  

the submissions made by learned counsel. There is ample  

evidence on record not only from the immediate family of  

Remani but also from her neighbour that she was subjected to  

physical violence almost on a daily basis.  The cause of discord  

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 11 of 14

Page 12

between the appellant and Remani appears to be her belief  

that the appellant had illicit relations with the wife of his elder  

brother. This may or may not be true but the fact of the matter  

is that relations between the parties were terribly strained and  

Remani was subjected to physical abuse almost on a daily  

basis. These strained relations, coupled with the allegations  

made by Remani, provided a motive for the appellant to  

murder her.

30. The fact that the appellant may have looked after Remani  

during her illness for a couple of days is neither here nor  

there. He was expected to do so.  

31. However, what is clinching in the present case is the  

medical evidence which clearly indicates that Remani was  

forcibly administered Furadan; she had resisted this forcible  

administration; as a result of her resistance, she received  

several minor injuries on her body. Eventually, with a view to  

overcome her resistance, she was smothered and ultimately  

she died as a result of the forcible administration of Furadan  

and smothering. No person other than her husband could  

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 12 of 14

Page 13

have possibly caused Remani’s death, especially considering  

the motive or grudge that he harboured against her.

32. Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that  

Remani’s father had himself stated in the FIR that she had  

committed suicide by consuming poison. This seems to have  

been the first impression gathered by Bhaskaran. Learned  

counsel for the State pointed out that the reason could  

possibly have been to save the appellant from imprisonment  

keeping the welfare of their two children in mind. It is not  

necessary for us to make any guesses in this regard.  

33. The fact is that investigations into the matter,  

particularly the injuries suffered by Remani and presence of  

Furadan in her mouth suggested that the case was not one of  

suicide. When the matter was taken to trial the truth  

eventually came out, which is that Remani had not committed  

suicide but had in fact been murdered.  Bhaskaran’s  

hypothesis proved to be only an assumption.

34. We are conscious that the case is one of circumstantial  

evidence but we are not able to find any break in the chain of  

evidence which could possibly throw up some other possibility.  

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 13 of 14

Page 14

Under these circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with  

the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the  

Trial Court and confirmed by the High Court.

35. There is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly  

dismissed.

….…….……………………..J.   (Swatanter Kumar)

….…….……………………..J.   (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; October 30, 2012  

Crl. Appeal No.732 of 2008                                                                    Page 14 of 14