SATHYA NARAYANAN Vs STATE TR.INSP.OF POLICE
Bench: P. SATHASIVAM,RANJAN GOGOI
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001539-001539 / 2008
Diary number: 24682 / 2008
Advocates: V. J. FRANCIS Vs
B. BALAJI
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 15
Page 16
Page 17
Page 18
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 24
Page 25
Page 26
Page 27
Page 28
Page 29
Page 30
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