RAMACHAMI v. STATE REP. BY STATE PROSECUTOR

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
C.K. Thakker
Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Judgment Date: 2008-10-22
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed. The Court holds that the accused was involved and the circumstances justify convicting under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC, with an eight-year custodial sentence. The conviction under Section 392 IPC and its sentence are upheld. Both sentences to run concurrently. The overall result is that the appellant’s conviction under 302 IPC is modified to 304 Part II IPC, with the corresponding eight-year sentence, while 392 IPC remains intact.
Final Disposition: Appeal partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Ramachami

Respondents

State rep. by State Prosecutor

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• V.N. Raghupathy

Counsels for Respondents

• G. Prakash

Case Synopsis & Summary

Ramachami v. State rep by State Prosecutor is a Supreme Court criminal appeal arising from Kerala High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences under sections 392 and 302 IPC on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstances that connected the accused with the crime: the accused and the deceased, a co-worker, were last seen together in the hotel on the night of the incident; the deceased kept money in his pocket, known to others in the hotel including the accused; the next morning the deceased was found injured on the hotel floor near the cash counter; the accused had been absconding since the incident; and the police recovered a wooden stick allegedly used for beating the deceased at a place in the hotel on the basis of the accused’s statement. The trial court convicted under 302 and 392 IPC; the High Court upheld this conviction. The appellant argued that he was not shown to be employed at the hotel and thus not properly connected to the offences, and that 302 IPC was not made out. The Supreme Court, in a three-judge bench, agrees that the circumstances, viewed collectively, establish involvement, but finds that the injuries point to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part II IPC) with an eight-year custodial sentence; the 392 IPC conviction and sentence are maintained. Both sentences are to run concurrently. The appeal is partly allowed.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 302 IPCSection 392 IPCSection 304 Part II IPCSection 324 IPC

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the prosecution has failed to establish that he was employed at the hotel or present on the night of the incident; the evidence pointing to the wrong person’s guilt undermines the conviction under Section 302 IPC. He further submits that the record does not conclusively prove a murder; at best it should be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and that conviction under Section 302 IPC is unwarranted.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents support the Kerala High Court’s upholding of the conviction on the strength of circumstantial evidence: the accused and the deceased were together in the hotel on the night in question; the deceased kept money in his pocket known to others; the accused fled and was later arrested; a wooden stick used for the alleged assault was recovered; the deceased was found injured near the cash counter. They argue the circumstances collectively establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and justify the sentence under 392 IPC, while acknowledging the injuries call for Section 304 Part II IPC as the appropriate conviction.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

_r_ [2008] 15 S.C.R. 46 A RAMACHAMI _v._ .. STATE REP. BY STATE PROSECUTOR (Criminal Appeal No.1399 of 2004) ## OCTOBER 22, 2008 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.K. THAKKER AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] ## _Penal Code, 1860:_ c _ss. 304 (part II) and 392_ - _Conviction of accused ulss 302 and 392 on the basis of circumstantial evidence_ - _Upheld by High Court_ - _HELD: The circumstances established are_ - _sufficient to hold the accused guilty However, considering_ D _the nature of injuries, accused convicted u/s 304(par:t II)_ - _Custodial sentence of 8 years would meet-the ends of justice_ - _Conviction and sentence uls 392 need no interf.erence_ - _Both the sentences to run concurrently_ - _Circumstantial evidence._ ~ f _:_ E Appellant-accused was convicted ulss 302 and 392 IPC by the trial court on the basis of the circumstances that he was seen along with the deceased, his coworker, on the night of occurrence and they were alone F in the hotel; that the accused knew where the deceased . . kept his money; that the following morning the deceased, sustaining injuries was found on the floor of the hotel near the cash counter; that the accused was absconding till his arrest; that the police recovered the weapon of G crime (a stick) from hotel premises at the instance of the accused. The conviction was upheld by the High Court. Aggrieved, the accused filed the appeal. _)-_ ). Partly allowing ·the appeal, the Court H 46 RAMACHAMI _v._ STATE REP. BY STATE PROSECUTOR 47 HELD: 1.1. The circumstances clearly establish that A the accused was employed in the hotel and used to sleep in the hotel, and on the night ·of occurrence both the deceased and the accused were alone in the hotel. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 in this regard is clear, cogent and credible. Additionally, the accused and the B deceased were last seen together on the previous night. The appellant was absconding and was arrested long after the incident. The circumstances are sufficient to hold the accused guilty. [Para 7] (49-E-G] c 1.2. However, considering nature of the injuries, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and custodial sentence of 8 years would meet the ends of justice. Conviction and sentence u/s 392 IPC need no interference. Both the sentences u/ss. 304 and o 392 IPC shall run concurrently. [Para 8 and 9] [49-G-H; 50A, B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1399 of 2004. E From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.10.2003 of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 436 of 2001. V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. F G. Prakash for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. G 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court upholding the conviction of the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 392 and 302 of th~ Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short H 48 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 15 S.C.R. A 'IPC'). He faced trial for offence punishable under Section 324 IPC, but he was found to be not guilty of that charge. Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000 were im!losed. It was directed that in case the fine was collected, the same was to be paid to the widow of Kuttappan (hereinafter referred to as B 'the deceased'). 3. The prosecution version essentially rested on circumstances. The trial court found that the circumstances were sufficient to hold the accused guilty. Accordingly, conviction, as c noted above, was recorded. In appeal, the High Court did not find any substance in the plea of the appellant and upheld the conviction. 0 > 4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution has not proved that the appellant was, at any point of time, employed at the hotel and present case is one where the wrong person has been picked up and has been convicted. Alternatively, it was submitted that an offence under Section 302 IPC is not made out. E 5. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the judgment of the High Court. 6. The circumstances, which were pressed into service by the prosecution to connect the accused with the offences, are F as follows: G - (i) the deceased Kuttappan and the accused Ramachamy used to sleep in the hotel itself in the night and on 3.2.1998 in the night they two were alone in the hotel (the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3). H - (ii) The deceased used to keep his money in the pocket of his brief and this fact was known to the other inmates of the hotel, including the accused RAMACHAMI _v._ STATE REP. BY STATE PROSECUTOR 49 [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] " A 7l (the version of PW1 and PW2). - (iii) On 4.2.1998 early in the morning by 6 O'clock when PW1 and PW2 reached the hotel as usual for work, they saw Kuttappan lying down sustaining injuries on the floor of the hotel near the cash counter (the B deposition of PW1 and PW2). - (iv) The accused who was along with the deceased in the hotel on the"prevision night was not seen anywhere near there and he had been absconding c - since then till his arrest (evidence of PW1, PW2 and F'W3). \ - (v) the police were able to recover M.0.1. (the wooden stick allegedly used for beating the de'ceased D - Kuttappan) from a particular place in the hotel premises on the basis of the statement of the accused while he was in custody (the evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 and PW12). 7. The circumstances clearly establish that the accused E was employed in the hotel and used to sleep in the hotel and on the night of occurrence, both the deceased and the accused were alone in the hotel. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 in this regard are clear, cogent and credible. Additionally, the accused and the deceased were last seen together on the F previous night. The appellant was arrested long after the incident, i.e., on 29.11.1998 and was absconding during the aforesaid period. The circumstances, according to us, are sufficient to hold the accused guilty. G 8. However, considering nature of the injuries, we are of the view that the appropriate conviction under Section 304 Part 11 IPC and custodial sentence of 8 years would meet the ends of justice. It is stated that the appellant has already suffered custody of more than 71/2 years. H [2008] 15 S.C.R. 50 ## SUPREME COURT REPORTS A . 9. So far as the conviction under Section 392 IPC and the sentence imposed are concerned, there is no infirmity therein to warrant interference. Both the sentences in respect of Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 392-_JPC shall run concurrently. B 10. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. R.P. Appeal Partly allowed.