Crl.A. 6-8 of 2004 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 6-8 OF 2004

C. PERUMAL ...... APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAJASEKARAN & ORS. ...... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1.    This is rather an unfortunate case.  There were  

five accused in all who were sentenced by the trial  

court for offences punishable under Section 376(2)(g),  

201 of the Indian Penal Code as well as Section 3(2)  

(v)  of  the  Scheduled  Castes  and  Scheduled  Tribes  

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.  The allegation  

was that the five accused, and A1 in particular, who  

was the main accused and involved with the deceased in  

a clandestine relationship, had raped her on the night  

intervening the 28 and 29th of January, 1999.  The trial  

court in its judgment dated 31st August, 2000 held the  

case against the accused to be proved and they were,  

accordingly, sentenced to death under section 302 or  

Section  302/34  of  the  IPC  and  to  various  terms  of  

imprisonment  under  the  various  other  sections  under

Crl.A. 6-8 of 2004 2

which they had been charged.

2. An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to  

the High Court and a reference was also made for the  

confirmation of the death sentence.  The High Court has  

by its impugned judgment declined the reference and at  

the  same  time  allowed  the  appeal  of  the  accused  

acquitting them in toto.   

3. The  present  appeals  have  been  filed  at  the  

instance of the complainant who is the father of the  

deceased.  We see from the record that A1 was the main  

accused.  As per the death certificate which has been  

put on record, he has passed away on the 30th June,  

2009.  The appeal qua him is, accordingly, abated.  We  

have, accordingly, examined the evidence with respect  

to A2 to A5.

4. We have gone through the evidence very carefully  

keeping  in  view  the  gravity  of  the  offence.   We,  

however, find that there is no evidence with respect to  

the involvement of A2 to A5.  The High Court has taken  

cognizance of the fact and observed that certain items  

had been recovered at the instance of A2 and A4 and  

they were a haystack, a nylon wire and a plastic wire  

which were not required to commit the murder. We see  

that all these items are of common use and have not  

been connected with the incident.  The learned counsel

Crl.A. 6-8 of 2004 3

for  the  appellant  has,  however,  argued  that  the  

evidence of P.W. 3 would show that accused A2 to A5 had  

also been seen with the deceased and A1 moving around  

together.  We have carefully perused the statement of  

this witness and find  a serious flaw therein inasmuch  

that  in  his  statement  recorded  under  Section  161  

Cr.P.C. this fact had not been mentioned by him and on  

the contrary the evidence suggests that all the five  

accused and the deceased had been seen together two  

days earlier to the incident.  The High Court was,  

therefore, to our mind, justified in holding that the  

time lag made it difficult to connect A2 to A5 with the  

incident.  We also put to the learned counsel for the  

appellant if there was any other evidence with respect  

to  the  involvement  of  the  accused.   She  candidly  

admitted that there was none.

5. We thus  find no  merit in  these appeals  which  

are, accordingly, dismissed.  

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

........................J [CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI

Crl.A. 6-8 of 2004 4

FEBRUARY 03, 2011.