RAMACHANDRAN Vs STATE OF KERALA
Bench: SWATANTER KUMAR,MADAN B. LOKUR
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000732-000732 / 2008
Diary number: 11283 / 2007
Advocates: P. V. DINESH Vs
R. SATHISH
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7
Page 8
Page 9
Page 10
Page 11
Page 12
Page 13
Page 14
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