Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2316 OF 2009

RAMUTHAI ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE REP. BY  INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT

WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2317 OF 2009

NALLAN @ SANTHANAM ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE REP. BY  INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2317 OF 2009

The appellant Nallan is stated to have died during  

the pendency of this appeal in this Court while undergoing  

his sentence.  We, accordingly, dispose of the appeal as  

having abated.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2316 OF 2009

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 2

1. This appeal arises out of the following facts:

1.1 Malaisamy  the  deceased,  son  of  P.W.  1,  was  a  

silversmith and was working in that capacity in some shop.  

Palani Kumar, son of A1 and A2 i.e. Nallan and Ramuthai  

respectively was a friend of the deceased. As Palani Kumar  

was a person of dubious credentials A1 and A2 were not  

happy with the association and they would often tell the  

accused that they would not permit their son to go with  

them and some incident had taken place a week prior to the  

present one and there was a great deal of unpleasantness  

on that account.   At about 9:00p.m. on the 21st September,  

2002,  P.W.  1  Ramanathan  went  to  the  nearby  shop  to  

purchase  a  beedi  while  the  deceased  followed  him  for  

purchasing a mosquito coil.  After the deceased had made  

his purchase and was proceeding towards his house he found  

A1 to A6 armed with cutting weapons standing and waiting  

for  him.   A2,  the  appellant  herein,  exhorted  her  co-

accused  to  kill  Malaisamy  on  which  the  other  accused  

attacked him with their weapons killing him at the spot.  

A First Information Report was thereafter lodged by P.W. 1  

for  offences  punishable  under  Section  302  etc.  of  the  

Indian Penal Code.  The trial court on a consideration of  

the evidence acquitted A7 and A8 of all charges.  The  

other accused were however convicted and sentenced under  

Section 302 etc. of the IPC and awarded suitable terms of

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 3

imprisonment.  An appeal was thereafter taken to the High  

Court by the convicted accused and the High Court has, by  

the impugned judgment, acquitted A5 and A6 as well.  It  

appears that A3 and A4 filed no special leave petitions in  

this Court whereas A1 and A2 filed Criminal Appeal Nos.  

2316 and 2317 of 2009.  The appeal filed by A1 Nallan has  

already been disposed of by us as having abated and we are  

now   left  with  the  appeal  of  Ramuthai,  the  appellant  

before us.

2. It  will  be  seen  that  the  appellant  has  been  

convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 of the  

IPC.  The basis of her conviction lies in the evidence of  

four eye witnesses Pws. 1 to 4.  The High Court has found  

that  P.Ws.  2  and  4  who  were  close  relatives  of  the  

complainant party could not be relied upon and the entire  

case therefore hinged on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 3,  

the father and the uncle of the deceased.   

3. Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, the learned counsel for the  

appellant  has, accordingly, argued that in the light of  

this uncertain evidence and in the background of the fact  

that the appellant had been charged for exhorting her co-

accused  to  kill  the  deceased  and  no  weapon  had  been  

recovered from her, it could not be said that she had  

abetted the murder.  He has further pointed out that some  

emphasis had  been laid by the High Court on the statement

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 4

of P.W. 3 who could be said to be an independent witness  

as he had deposed that he and his brother P.W. 1 had not  

been  on  speaking  terms  for  25  years  and  as  such  his  

evidence could be relied upon.  Mr. Muth Raj has, however,  

pointed  out  that  from  the  statement  of  P.W.  18,  the  

Investigating Officer, it was not clear as to whether the  

statement of P.W. 3 had been recorded under Section 161  

Cr.P.C. or not and as such his evidence had to be looked  

upon with suspicion.  He has finally submitted that the  

fact that P.W. 18, the Investigating Officer, bore deep  

animosity   with  A1  and  A2  was  clear  from  the  record  

inasmuch that Palani Kumar aforesaid had died in police  

custody  and  on  a  complaint  made  by  the  appellant,  an  

inquiry had been conducted not only by the National Human  

Rights  Commission  but  also  by  senior  police  officers  

against him.   

4. Mr. Subramonium Prasad, the learned counsel for the  

respondent-State has however, supported the judgments of  

the trial court and the High Court.   

5. We  have  considered  the  arguments  advanced  by  the  

learned counsel.  It is the obligation of the prosecution  

to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and if a doubt  

is cast on the evidence, the benefit thereof must go to  

the  accused.   In  the  case  before  us  the  only  part  

attributed to the appellant is that she had exhorted her

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 5

co-accused  to  commit  the  murder.   We  find  this  to  be  

rather far-fetched as it is apparent that a large number  

of persons had come armed to the place of incident and  

there was no need for her to exhort them.  We also see  

that the evidence of P.W. 5 on this aspect appears to be  

somewhat ambivalent.  The High Court itself has refused to  

rely on the evidence of P.W. 2 and P.W. 4 and as submitted  

by the learned counsel for the appellant, there is some  

uncertainty with regard to the evidence of P.W.3 as well.  

In the light of the fact that P.W. 18 admittedly bore  

grievous enmity against A1 and A2 the possibility that he  

had  roped  in  A2  to  make  out  a  false  case  to  settle  

personal scores, cannot also be ruled out.   

6. For  these  cumulative  reasons,  we  find  that  the  

appellant's conviction is unacceptable.  We, accordingly,  

allow the appeal, set aside the order of the courts below  

insofar as the appellant Ramuthai is concerned and order  

her acquittal.  She is stated to be in custody.  She shall  

be released forthwith if not wanted in connection with any  

other case.

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

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 6

  ......................J    [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

NEW DELHI AUGUST 02, 2011.

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2316 OF 2009

RAMUTHAI ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE REP. BY  INSPECTOR OF POLICE & ANR. ..... RESPONDENT

O R D E R

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Vide our separate reasoned order, we have allowed  

the appeal and ordered the acquittal of the appellant  

herein.

It is stated that the appellant Ramuthai is in  

custody.  She shall be released forthwith if not wanted  

in connection with any other case.  

The reasoned order shall be separately placed on  

record.   

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

  ......................J    [GYAN SUDHA MISRA]

Crl.A. No. 2316 of 2009 8

NEW DELHI AUGUST 02, 2011.