Page 1

       REPORTABLE    

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     1539     OF     2008   

Sathya Narayanan                    .... Appellant(s)

Versus

State Rep. by Inspector of Police                   .... Respondent(s)

WITH

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     1573     OF     2009   

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

P.Sathasivam,J.

1) These appeals are directed against the judgment and  

order dated 17.04.2008 passed by the Madurai Bench of the  

Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1108 of 2000  

whereby the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the  

appeal filed by the appellants herein and confirmed the order  

of conviction and sentence dated 14.11.2000 passed by the Ist  

1

Page 2

Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,  

Trichy in Sessions Case No.139/2000.

2) Brief facts:

(a) Jayanthi (A-1) (Appellant No.1 herein in Criminal Appeal  

No. 1573 of 2009) was married to one Rajendran (PW-34) and  

they were residing at Trichy along with their children.  After  

the death of their daughter, Jayanthi intended to lead a  

spiritual life and Rajendran started living separately whereas  

their son Sathya Narayanan (A-4) was living with her.

(b) Jayanthi (A-1) was actually running an Ashram in the  

name of Sri Devi Maha Sannathi at Govardhan Garden, K.K.  

Nagar, Trichy.  The other accused persons, viz., A-2 to A-11  

therein were assisting her in the affairs of the Ashram whereas  

A-12 was working as a Watchman in the said Ashram.

(c) One Sriputhra (A-2) used to visit the said Ashram and  

became a Member and stayed there along with his son Sathya  

Narayanan (A-3) and daughter Sadhana (A-7) leaving his wife.  

According to the prosecution, during the course of time, A-1  

and A-2 developed illicit intimacy.  One Leelavathi (since  

deceased), who was originally taking tuition for the children of  

A-1 and A-2, has also became a Member and she was looking  

2

Page 3

after the accounts of the said Ashram.  During her  

continuation in the Ashram, A-2 and Leelavathi also developed  

illicit intimacy with each other.   

(d) On account of the above, there was a quarrel between  

Jayanthi (A-1) and Leelavathi (deceased) and Leelavathi  

threatened her that she would disclose about her illicit  

intimacy with A-2 to the outside public which would cause  

disgrace and shame to her and that she should be given a  

share in the property of the Ashram.   

(e) On 08.04.2000, between 6-7 a.m., Jayanthi (A-1) along  

with other accused persons assembled at the backside of the  

Temple and started beating Leelavathi causing grievous  

injuries to her and Jayanthi strangulated her neck which  

resulted into her death.  Sivasanmugam (PW-1), who was  

residing in the house situated nearby the Temple, heard the  

cries of Leelavathi and after two days, he came to know that  

Leelavathi was beaten to death and the dead body was burnt  

in the burial ground.        

(f)  On 17.04.2000, PW-1 lodged a complaint at K.K. Nagar  

Police Station, Trichy which came to be registered as C.S. No.  

78 of 2000 mentioning the suspicion over the death of  

3

Page 4

Leelavathi.  After investigation, the case was committed to the  

Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No. 139 of  

2000 and the charges were framed against 12 accused persons  

for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 302 read with  

149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’).

(g) By judgment dated 14.11.2000, the trial Court while  

acquitting A-6 to A-11, convicted A-1 to A-5 under Sections  

302 read with Section 149 and 201 of IPC and sentenced them  

to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for life along with a fine  

of Rs. 2,000/- each, in default, to further undergo RI for 6  

months for the offence punishable under Section 302. A-12  

was convicted under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced to  

undergo RI for 4 years along with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in  

default, to further undergo RI for 3 months.   

(h) Challenging the said judgment, A-1 to A-5 and A-12 filed  

an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 1108 of 2000 before the  

Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.  During the  

pendency of the appeal before the High Court, A-2 and A-12  

died and appeal against them stood abated.  The High Court,  

by impugned judgment dated 17.04.2008, dismissed the  

appeal and confirmed their conviction and sentence.    

4

Page 5

(i) Aggrieved by the said judgment, Sathya Narayanan (A-3)  

filed Criminal appeal No. 1539 of 2008 and Jayanthi (A-1),  

Chinna Sathya Narayanan (A-4) and Dinakaran (A-5) filed  

Criminal Appeal No. 1573 of 2009 before this Court.

3) Heard Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel  

for A-3 –  appellant in Crl. A. No. 1539 of 2008, Mr. V. Giri,  

learned senior counsel for A-1, A-4 and A-5 appellants in Crl.  

A.No. 1573 of 2009 and Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, learned  

Additional Advocate General for the State of Tamil Nadu.

4) The case of the prosecution is that Jayanthi (A-1) and  

Sriputhra (A-2) were staying at No.11, Govardhan Garden,  

K.K. Nagar leaving the company of their spouses.  Sathya  

Narayananan (A-4) – son of A-1 and Sadhana (A-7) – daughter  

of A-2 were also living with them at the above-mentioned  

address.  Before coming to Govardhan Garden, A-1 was living  

with her husband Rajendran (PW-34) at Kalla Street, Trichy  

along with their children.  In the year 1987, after the death of  

her daughter-Sridevi, she completely devoted herself to  

spirituality which resulted into separation with her husband.  

It is the case of the defence that as the place was very small,  

A-1 shifted to the above-mentioned address at K.K. Nagar  

5

Page 6

along with Sriputhra (A-2) for the purpose of continuing the  

spiritual works.   

5) Further, it is the case of the prosecution that while  

leading a spiritual life, A-1 came into contact with A-2 who  

used to visit the Temple and they developed illicit intimacy  

which resulted into desertion of the husband and wife of A-1  

and A-2 respectively whereas it is the claim of the defence that  

A-1 and A-2 deserted their spouses for the sole object of  

attaining spirituality.  While so, on 08.04.2000 between 6 to 7  

a.m. Jayanthi (A-1) along with other accused persons  

assembled at the back side of the Temple and beat Leelavathi  

causing grievous injuires to her and A-1 strangulated her neck  

which resulted into her death.    

6) On the side of the prosecution, 46 witnesses were  

examined and documents (Exh. No. P-1 to Exh. No. P-48) and  

the material object Nos. 1 to 4 were marked.  It is not in  

dispute that all the prosecution witnesses except police officers  

turned hostile.  The evidence of PWs 1 and 2 were disbelieved  

to a certain extent.  The trial Judge, based on various  

circumstances, which clinchingly proved the prosecution case,  

6

Page 7

convicted the appellants which was affirmed by the High  

Court.

Contentions:

7) Mr. R. Balasubramanian, learned senior counsel for A-3,  

submitted that in the absence of any evidence in support of the  

prosecution and delay in lodging of the complaint, conviction  

solely on the basis of the circumstantial evidence cannot be  

sustained.  In any event, according to him, absolutely there is  

no discussion by the High Court about the alleged role of A-3,  

hence, prayed for setting aside the conviction and sentence.   

8) Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for A-1, A-4 and A-5  

submitted that the High Court having disbelieved all the  

witnesses ought to have acquitted the appellants only on the  

basis of presumption of certain facts.  He further contended  

that the High Court has also grossly erred in partly believing  

the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 for the purpose of convicting the  

appellants.  The conduct of the appellants, who brought the  

doctor to the place where the deceased was lying instead of  

taking her to the hospital as the same was essential for the  

safety and the physical condition of the deceased, cannot form  

7

Page 8

any link in the chain of circumstances.  He further submitted  

that the High Court ought not to have convicted the  

appellants-accused only on the basis of the doubts arose  

without there being any continuity of incriminating  

circumstances.  According to him, the High Court ought to  

have seen that to convict a person on the basis of  

circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must form a  

complete chain and all the circumstances should point out  

that the accused is the only person who committed the offence  

and further exclude the entire reasonable hypothesis that the  

accused is innocent.  According to him, the High Court, having  

disbelieved the case of the prosecution to the extent that there  

was illicit relationship between A-1 and A-2 and also that there  

was no evidence that A-2 was having illicit relationship with  

the deceased, confirmed the conviction merely on the  

surmises.  He further pointed out that there was no eye  

witness to the occurrence and the case is purely based on  

circumstantial evidence.  Further, learned senior counsel  

contended that the date of occurrence was 08.04.2000 at  

about 10.30 a.m. and the FIR authored by PW-1 was lodged on  

8

Page 9

17.04.2000, after a gap of 9 days which itself is sufficient to  

reject the story of the prosecution.

9) Mr. Guru Krishnakumar, learned Additional Advocate  

General for the State of Tamil Nadu while supporting the  

decision of the trial Court and the High Court submitted that  

various circumstances relied on by the prosecution are  

acceptable and, in fact, both the courts rightly convicted the  

appellants and prayed for confirmation of the same.  

10) It is not in dispute that the basis of conviction is solely on  

the circumstances relied on by the prosecution.  In view of the  

same, it is relevant to understand the nature and various  

aspects relating to circumstantial evidence.   

11) In Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1952 SCR  

1091 the nature, character and essential proof required in a  

criminal case that rests on circumstantial evidence alone has  

been laid down.   This case has been uniformly followed and  

applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up to  

this date.

12) In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of  

Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, a Bench of  three Judges of  

9

Page 10

this Court, after analyzing various aspects, laid down certain  

cardinal principles for conviction on the basis of circumstantial  

evidence.  This Court laid down the following conditions must  

be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be  

fully established:

“153…..(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion  of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. …. … (2) the facts so established should be consistent only  with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to  say, they should not be explainable on any other  hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature  and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except  the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not  to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion  consistent with the innocence of the accused and must  show that in all human probability the act must have  been done by the accused. 154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,  constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on  circumstantial evidence.”

13) It is clear that even in the absence of eye-witness, if  

various circumstances relied on by the prosecution relating to  

the guilt are fully established beyond doubt, the Court is free  

to award conviction.  Further, the chain of events must be  

complete in order to sustain the conviction on the basis of  

circumstantial evidence.

10

Page 11

Delay in filing the complaint:

14) Both the learned senior counsel for the appellants  

commented the delay in filing the complaint which, according  

to them, has not been properly explained by the prosecution.  

It is true that the incident occurred on 08.04.2000 between 6-

7 a.m., and a formal complaint was lodged by PW-1 on  

17.04.2000, that is, after nine days of the occurrence.  Though  

the High Court has disbelieved the version of PW-1 on certain  

aspects, particularly, the claim of illegal intimacy with A-1 and  

A-2 and A-2 and the deceased, other aspects of his evidence  

cannot be rejected.  Since it was PW-1 who filed the complaint,  

in his evidence, he explained the reason for the delay.  

According to him, at the relevant time, he was residing at 15,  

Govardhan Garden, 9, K.K. Nagar for the last 15 years along  

with his wife S. Balambal (PW-2).  He stated that the Temple  

run by A-1 is located behind his house.  He further deposed  

that he is well acquainted with all the accused persons  

because he along with his wife used to visit the Temple  

regularly. In his evidence, he described about the details of all  

the accused persons.  According to him, Leelavathi- the  

deceased was looking after the Accounts and Postal  

11

Page 12

Transactions of the Temple.  She was appointed as a Member  

in the Educational Trust of the temple.  Around 20 days before  

the incident, when PW-1 was going along with his wife,  

Leelavathi stopped them and apprised about the ill-treatment  

meted out to her by A-1 and A-2.  He further deposed that on  

08.04.2000, about 6-7 a.m., when he was in his house, he  

heard the shoutings of Leelavathi as “don’t beat, don’t beat”  

and also heard the voice of A-1 saying “beat, beat”  and also  

saying “will you go out”.  According to PW-1, after some time,  

there was no noise.  In the same morning, at around 9 a.m.,  

again he heard the cries of Leelavathi.  On hearing the same,  

he along with his wife (PW-2) came out of their house and  

noticed that Leelavathi was running out of the house.  They  

also heard the voice of A-2 asking others “catch her” “catch  

her”. They further noticed A-1 asking Sasikala (A-10) to bring a  

wood in order to beat her.  A-10 handed it over to Dinakaran  

(A-5) who, in turn, assaulted Leelavathi in the back side of her  

head using that wood.  On seeing their presence, the accused  

persons dragged her inside the house.  After two days, when he  

went to the nearby chicken shop, the owner of the shop told  

him that Leelavathi was beaten to death and she was burnt in  

12

Page 13

the burial ground.  According to him, the chicken shop owner  

came to know all these details through Karuppaiah (A-12).  

After enquiring about the death from several persons, PW-1  

deposed that he came to know about the truth and then he  

gave a complaint to the Police on 17.04.2000 which Exh. P/1.  

PW-1 gave the same reasoning in regard to an answer to a  

specific question relating to delay in filing of the complaint for  

the incident that had happened on 08.04.2000.  It is pertinent  

to mention here that the very same facts mentioned above  

have been narrated by PW-2 in her deposition dated  

16.10.2000.  In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion  

that A-2, A-5 and A-9 were behind the termination of his and  

his wife’s job and that he made a false complaint against them.  

As mentioned earlier, though the High Court disbelieved his  

version as to the illegal intimacy between A-1 and A-2 and A-2  

and the deceased, the reasons furnished by him for the delay  

in lodging the complaint after 9 days are acceptable.  

Inasmuch as the entire episode has taken place within the  

Ashram, PW-1 who worked in the Ashram 9 months ago along  

with his wife and was residing at the backside of the Temple,  

after getting full information about the incident, made a  

13

Page 14

complaint to the police.  In such circumstance, the prosecution  

case cannot be rejected merely on the ground of delay since the  

complainant (PW-1) has reasonably explained the reasons for  

the delay.  Accordingly, we reject the argument of the learned  

senior counsel for the appellants.  

Reliance on the hostile witness:

15) It is the contention of Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel  

that in view of the fact that all the prosecution witnesses  

turned hostile and even the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 are not  

acceptable in toto, the conviction based on certain statements  

cannot be accepted.  In this regard, it is relevant to refer a  

decision of this Court in Mrinal Das and Others vs. State of  

Tripura, (2011) 9 SCC 479.  In the said decision, the main  

prosecution witnesses, viz., PWs 2, 9, 10 and 12 were declared  

as hostile witnesses.  While reiterating that corroborated part  

of evidence of hostile witness regarding commission of offence  

is admissible, this Court held:  

“67. It is settled law that corroborated part of evidence of  hostile witness regarding commission of offence is  admissible. The fact that the witness was declared hostile at  the instance of the Public Prosecutor and he was allowed to  cross-examine the witness furnishes no justification for  rejecting en bloc the evidence of the witness. However, the  court has to be very careful, as prima facie, a witness who  

14

Page 15

makes different statements at different times, has no regard  for the truth. His evidence has to be read and considered as  a whole with a view to find out whether any weight should be  attached to it. The court should be slow to act on the  testimony of such a witness, normally, it should look for  corroboration with other witnesses. Merely because a  witness deviates from his statement made in the FIR, his  evidence cannot be held to be totally unreliable. To make it  clear that evidence of hostile witness can be relied upon at  least up to the extent, he supported the case of the  prosecution. The evidence of a person does not become  effaced from the record merely because he has turned hostile  and his deposition must be examined more cautiously to find  out as to what extent he has supported the case of the  prosecution.”

16) We reiterate that merely because the witness was  

declared as hostile, there is no need to reject his evidence in  

toto.  In other words, the evidence of hostile witness can be  

relied upon at least to the extent, it supported the case of the  

prosecution.  In view of the same, reliance placed on certain  

statements made by hostile witnesses by the trial Court and  

the High Court are acceptable.  Now, let us consider hereunder  

how far those statements supported the case of the  

prosecution.  

Evidence of PWs 1 and 2:     

17) We have already referred to the evidence of PW-1 at  

length and PW-2 who is none else than wife of PW-1.  

Admittedly, they were residing behind the Temple and it was  

15

Page 16

PW-1 who made a complaint (Exh. P/1) to the police after  

enquiring about the incident from various persons/sources.  

Balambal (PW-2) also explained the case of the prosecution  

similar to as narrated by PW-1.  She denied the suggestion  

that she came to know the details about the death of  

Leelavathi on 10.04.2000.  She also denied the suggestion that  

even though she knew that Leelavathi had a natural death  

because of the chest pain and her husband in order to grab  

money from the accused persons made a false complaint to the  

police.  Though both PWs 1 and 2 are not eye witnesses to the  

occurrence, in view of the fact that they worked in the Ashram  

for 9 months prior to the incident and were residing behind the  

Temple, PW-1 lodged a complaint Ext. P/1 about the death of  

Leelavathi after getting all the details and the circumstances  

highlighted by them support the case of the prosecution.

Deceased was a Member of the Trust:

18) It is not in dispute that Leelavathi (deceased) was  

originally taking tuition for the children of A-1 and A-2, who  

were residing in the Ashram after leaving their spouses.  It is  

also not disputed that Leelavathi has also became a Member of  

the Trust of the Ashram and she was actually staying in the  

16

Page 17

Ashram.  Through the evidence of Subramanian (PW-40), a  

xerox copy of the Trust Deed had been marked as Exh. P-27.  

On perusal of the same, it can be seen that Jayanthi (A-1) had  

established a Trust in the name of Sridevi Sewa Trust and  

Sriputhra (A-2), Peria Sathya Narayanan, (A-3), Chinna Sathya  

Narayanan (A-4), Sadhana (A-5) and Leelavathi (deceased) were  

appointed as Trustees.  These aspects have been stated by A-1  

in her statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of  

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’).  Though there  

is no acceptable evidence as to the fact that an attempt was  

made for her removal from the Trust, the fact remains that  

Leelavathi (deceased) was a Member of the said Trust.  

Death occurred in the Ashram:  

19) It is the definite case of the prosecution that Leelavathi  

(deceased) was a Trustee in the above said Trust, looking after  

the accounts of the Ashram and was staying in the Ashram.  

Selvi Mythili (PW-35) and Thiru Ananda Padhmanaban (PW-

36), sister and brother of the deceased respectively, had  

deposed in their evidence that Leelavathi was staying in the  

Ashram itself leaving them and her parents and that she had  

given some assignment there.   Both of them deposed that  

17

Page 18

since then she became a Trustee, there was a dispute with  

regard to the management of the said Trust.  The very same  

fact has also been stated in the evidence of PWs 1 & 2 that  

about 20 days prior to the occurrence, Leelavathi (deceased)  

was subjected to torture and harassment with regard to her  

removal from the said Trust.  The evidence of Dr.  

Thirugnanasundaram (PW-6) and Dr. Sathyavenkatesh (PW-7)  

–the local doctors are also relevant as to the death of the  

deceased which occurred in the Ashram.  PW-6, in his  

evidence, had deposed that on 08.04.2000, at about 11 a.m.,  

he received a phone call from a person from Sridevi Temple  

stating that one lady has become fainted and requested him to  

see her in the Ashram on which he replied in the negative and  

advised the caller to take her to his Clinic.  After 5 minutes,  

Sriputhra (A-2) came to his Clinic and again requested him to  

attend the patient in the Ashram but he refused to accede to  

his request.  From the above, it is clear that PW-6 was  

requested to attend a lady patient at the Ashram.

20) Likewise, PW-7 was requested to attend a lady lying  

unconscious in the Ashram.  In his evidence, he deposed that  

on 08.04.2000, at about 11.30 a.m. Sriputhra (A-2) came to  

18

Page 19

his Clinic and stated that one lady was fainted in the Ashram  

and requested him to attend her in the Ashram.  PW-7 went to  

the Temple in order to see her in the car of A-2 and found one  

lady lying in the house adjacent to the said Temple beneath the  

sofa in the front hall.  He further explained that after checking  

the pulse and heart beat, he declared her ‘dead’.   

21) From the evidence of Doctors and the statement of A-2  

made to them regarding the condition of the lady, it is clear  

that the death occurred in the Ashram.

Failure of accused to give satisfactory explanation to an  incriminate circumstance which was within their special  knowledge

22) Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as  

under:

“106. Burden of proving fact especially within  knowledge.- When any fact is especially within the  knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is  upon him.

Illustrations (a) When a person does an act with some intention other than  

that which the character and circumstances of the act  suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.

(b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without a ticket.  The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.”

19

Page 20

The applicability of the above provision has been explained by  

this Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12  

SCC 254 which held as under:

“23. ……………………The principle is well settled. The  provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are  unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any  fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the  burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is  last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as  to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an  explanation which appears to the court to be probable and  satisfactory. If he does so he must be held to have  discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on  the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to  discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the  Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if  the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in  discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides  an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved  against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof  in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It  lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw  any light upon facts which are specially within his  knowledge and which could not support any theory or  hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the court can  consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an  additional link which completes the chain. The principle has  been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd., Re. AIR 1960 Mad  218.

24. There is considerable force in the argument of counsel  for the State that in the facts of this case as well it should be  held that the respondent having been seen last with the  deceased, the burden was upon him to prove what happened  thereafter, since those facts were within his special  knowledge. Since, the respondent failed to do so, it must be  held that he failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by  Section 106 of the Evidence Act. This circumstance,  therefore, provides the missing link in the chain of  circumstances which prove his guilt beyond reasonable  doubt.”

20

Page 21

23) The appellants-accused having been seen last with the  

deceased, the burden of proof rests upon them to prove what  

had happened thereafter since those facts were within their  

special knowledge.  In the absence of any explanation, it must  

be held that they failed to discharge the burden cast upon  

them by Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.  

Admittedly, none of the appellants explained what had  

happened to the deceased even in their statements under  

Section 313 of the Code.  

Distress cry of the deceased

24) We have already stated that at the relevant time, PWs 1 &  

2, who are husband and wife, were residing at the back side of  

the Ashram.  It was PW-1, who after thorough enquiry, made a  

complaint to the police on 17.04.2000 (Exh. P/1).  In the  

complaint, PW-1 has specifically stated that on 08.04.2000,  

around 6-7 a.m., while he was in his house, he heard the  

shouting of Leelavathi saying “don’t beat, don’t beat” and also  

heard A-1 saying “beat, beat”.  In Exh. P/1, PW-1 also stated  

that at that time, A-2 shouted by saying “catch her” “catch  

her”.  All these events, particularly, the distress cry of the  

deceased was heard by PW-1 and he mentioned the same in  

21

Page 22

his complaint (Exh. P/1).  It is also a relevant circumstance  

which supports the case of the prosecution.

Commotion in the Ashram

25) Mohan (PW-4), whose house is situated next to Sridevi  

Temple in the eastern side stated that he is well acquainted  

with A-1 to A-4 and A-7.  According to him, in April 2000,  

when he was studying in the top floor of his house, he heard a  

sound coming from Sridevi Temple.   Though he turned hostile,  

in his chief examination, he stated that he heard a commotion  

in the Ashram at the relevant time and the date of the  

occurrence which is also another circumstance which supports  

the case of the prosecution.

The statements of Doctors - PW-6 and PW-7  

26) Dr. Thirugnanasundaram (PW-6), deposed that on  

08.04.2000, between 11.00 and 11.15 a.m., he received a  

phone call from Sridevi Temple stating that one woman had  

fallen down on account of dizziness and requested him to come  

and see her.  He replied in the negative and advised them to  

22

Page 23

take her to his Clinic.  There was no response from the other  

end.   After 5-10 minutes, A-2 came to his Clinic in a car and  

requested him to see the patient in the Ashram but he did not  

accede to his request. He further deposed that the distance  

between his Clinic and Sridevi Temple might be of 3 furlong  

and he also admitted that he knows A-1 and A-2.  

27) Dr. Sathyavenkatesh, who was examined as (PW-7),  

deposed that on 08.04.2000, around 11.30 a.m., A-2 came to  

his Clinic and informed that a woman had become  

unconscious and requested him to come to the Ashram for  

treatment and on his request, he went to see her in his car.  

He further deposed that when he reached there, a woman was  

found lying in the main hall beneath the sofa.  He checked her  

pulse and heart beat and found that the woman was dead.  He  

further stated that on the same day, after 8.00 p.m., A-2 came  

to his Clinic and sought for the Death Certificate.  He informed  

him that since he had not given any treatment to her, he could  

not issue the same.  Since A-2 compelled him to issue such  

Certificate on the ground that the deceased was a Member of  

the Trust and the Auditor has sought the same, he issued a  

Death Certificate.  The Xerox copy of the Death Certificate is  

23

Page 24

marked as Exh. P-2.  He also stated that he had not seen any  

injury on the body.  He fairly admitted that without doing post  

mortem, it would not be possible to mention the cause of death  

and certificate cannot be issued.  He reiterated that only on the  

insistence of A-2, he issued a Death Certificate.  

28) The analysis of the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 shows that in  

the morning of 08.04.2000, both the Doctors, initially PW-6,  

was requested to attend a lady lying unconscious in the  

Ashram and when PW-6 declined, PW-7 was taken to the  

Ashram.  It is further clear that on preliminary examination by  

PW-7, the woman was found dead.  The statements of PWs 6  

and 7 prove that the deceased died in the Ashram on  

08.04.2000.  It is also clear that though PW-7 has stated that  

he did not notice any injury on the body of the deceased, he  

admitted that the whole body was covered with a blue colour  

saree.  He issued the Death Certificate mentioning that the  

deceased would have died due to heart attack without any  

examination, particularly, when the patient did not come to  

him at any point of time that too at the insistence of A-2, there  

is no need to give importance to the same.  However, the  

evidence of PWs 6 and 7 prove the death of the deceased  

24

Page 25

occurred on the morning of 08.04.2000 in the Ashram which is  

also one of the reliable circumstance which supports the case  

of the prosecution.  It is also relevant to point out that the  

doctor, PW-7, admitted that when he visited the Ashram, he  

found a body lying beneath the sofa.  It also creates a  

suspicion about the cause of her death.              

Sudha (PW-8) servant maid was told not to report for work  in the afternoon:

29) Though Sudha (PW-8) turned hostile, in her deposition, it  

was stated that she was working in Sridevi Temple from  

January to March, 2000 and was distributing Saffron powder,  

turmeric and holy ashes to the devotees of the Temple.  She  

further deposed that in April, 2000, when she went for work in  

the morning and was returning to her house for lunch at about  

1.00 p.m., A-2 asked her not to come for work in the  

afternoon, therefore, on his instruction, she did not go for work  

in the afternoon.  The fact that PW-8, who used to help the  

devotees all the time was asked not to attend in the afternoon  

in the month of April, 2000 is also one of the circumstance  

which supports the prosecution case.

25

Page 26

PWs 35 and 36 brother and sister of the deceased were not  informed about the death of the deceased:

30) Though PWs 35 and 36, brother and sister of the  

deceased respectively, were residing in the same town were not  

informed about the death of Leelavathi by any person in the  

Ashram, particularly, A-1 and A-2.  As a matter of fact, PWs  

15 and 16 (vettiyan) who were attending the work of cremating  

the dead bodies, before commencement of their work, asked  

about the relatives of the deceased.   A-2 informed them that  

the deceased is an orphan and had no relatives. As rightly  

observed by both the Courts, it would indicate that the  

appellants were not only responsible for committing murder  

but also screened the evidence.  The statements of PWs 15 and  

16, persons in charge of cremation of dead bodies, answers  

given by A-2 about their query relating to the relatives of the  

deceased and their reply that the deceased was an orphan are  

relevant circumstances which prove the case of the  

prosecution.     

Motive:

31) In the case of circumstantial evidence, motive also  

assumes significance for the reason that the absence of motive  

26

Page 27

would put the court on its guard and cause it to scrutinize  

each piece of evidence closely in order to ensure that  

suspicion, omission or conjecture do not take the place of  

proof.  In the case on hand, the prosecution has demonstrated  

that initially, the deceased entered the Ashram in order to  

assist the devotees and subsequently became one of the  

Trustees of the Trust and slowly developed grudge with the  

appellants.  PWs 35 and 36, sister and brother of the deceased  

Leelavathi deposed that since then she became a Trustee,  

there was a dispute with regard to the Management of the said  

Trust.  

32) From the above materials, we noted the following  

circumstances relied on by the prosecution, accepted by the  

trial Court and the High Court :

(i) The deceased was a member of the Trust.

(ii) On 08.04.2000, the date of incident, there was some kind  

of commotion in the Ashram.

(iii) The death occurred in the Ashram.

(iv) In the complaint to police (Exh. P-1), it was stated that  

there was distress cry of the deceased.

27

Page 28

(v) PW-4 heard a commotion in the Ashram.

(vi) A-2 approached PW-6 (Doctor) stating that a lady was  

lying unconscious.

(vii) PW-7 (another Doctor) was requested to attend a lady  

lying unconscious.

(viii) The accused failed to take the deceased to the hospital  

rather they preferred to treat her in the Ashram itself  

with the help of known doctors (PWs 6 & 7).

(ix) PW-7 visited the Ashram and found a body lying beneath  

the Sofa.

(x) The dead body was covered with a Saree and, therefore,  

PW-7 could not have seen any external injury.

(xi) The accused have chosen not to conduct post mortem  

hence, the real cause of the death was completely  

suppressed.

(xii) PW-8 was told not to report for work in the afternoon.

(xiii) The accused have failed to inform any of the relatives of  

the deceased (PWs 35 & 36) though they lived in the same  

town.

(xiv) A-2 visited PW-15’s place for arranging for the cremation.

28

Page 29

(xv) PWs 15 & 16 asked about the availability of relatives and  

the accused answered in the negative.

(xvi)  PWs 15 to 18 identified A-3 as being present at the time  

of cremation.

(xvii) The time of cremation of the deceased was late in the  

evening, though the death occurred in the forenoon itself.

(xviii)The accused had voluntarily lied to the persons who were  

cremating the body (vettiyan) that the deceased was an  

orphan and has no relatives.   

Conclusion:

33) The above analysis clearly shows that though there is no  

direct evidence about the cause of death, various  

circumstances projected by the prosecution complete the chain  

of link and established that, in all probability, the act must  

have been done by the appellants.  All the circumstances have  

been clearly discussed by the trial Court and it rightly  

convicted and awarded appropriate sentence.  The High Court,  

as an appellate Court, once again marshaled all the materials  

leading to the death of the deceased Leelavathi and confirmed  

29

Page 30

the same.  We fully concur with the said conclusion.  

Consequently, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed.  

………….…………………………J.                  (P. SATHASIVAM)                                  

       ………….…………………………J.                 (RANJAN GOGOI)  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 2, 2012.

30