MURUGAN V.

STATE OF TAMIL NADU: AN ANALYSIS

SUBMITTED BY- ANJNI GUPTA

SAP ID- 81012100232

ROLL NO. - B220

BA LL.B. (Hons)

NMIMS (SCHOOL OF LAW)

SUBMITTED TO PROFESSOR REEMA HORE

INTRODUCTION
Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu is a murder case. The circumstances are as follows: first, the
deceased was targeted because he disapproved of Kumar's proposal to marry his daughter Geetha;
second, the appellant and Kumar are cousins; third, they both visited the deceased's home to invite
him to dinner at Kumar's home; fourth, Geetha established the fact that the deceased, Kumar, and
appellant had dinner at Kumar's home; and finally, Murugan's death. The appellant was found
guilty of violating Sections 3641 and 3022/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The defendant is the
State of Tamil Nadu and the plaintiff is Murugan. The High Court upheld the decision made by
the bench in the lower court, and the accused filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.
In this case, the Supreme Court observed that the two lower courts correctly found the appellant
guilty of the crimes in question by giving due weight to the prosecution's eyewitness testimony,
even though the appellant's co-defendant was no longer alive to testify.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. In this case, Kumar (since dead) was the uncle of Geetha. She was in sixth grade at the
time. Kumar was married but was living separately from his wife. At the time, Kumar and
Geetha were living in the same locality and he wished to marry her. However, Murugan
(Geetha’s father) is firmly opposed to the idea of Kumar marrying his daughter, as Kumar
had already ruined his ex-wife's life and he did not want the same Geetha. As a result,
Kumar threatened Geetha that he would kidnap and marry her.
2. One afternoon Kumar went to Geetha’s house and demanded ‘Chili” to cook mutton.
Geetha was alone at the time. When she refused to give him ‘Chili’ Murugan again
threatened that he would rape her this time.
3. Earlier that time, around 10 pm, Kumar along with Murugan (appellant) went over to
Geetha’s place to invite her father for dinner. Murugan (Geetha’s father) accepted the
invitation and went along with both of them for dinner. Later that night at 11 pm, when
Murugan did not return home, Geetha (PW-1) went over to Kumar’s house to check her
father’s whereabouts. On reaching there, she found the trio having drinks and dinner
together. Her father reassured her that he would be coming shortly.

1
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/695990/
2
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560742/
 4. However, Murugan did not come home till the next day morning, Geetha (PW-1) and her
mother Saroja (PW-2) went over to Kumar’s house to check her father’s whereabouts. On
reaching there the two found Murugan’s dead body lying near the iron cot with brutal
injuries on his body. Kumar and his cousin were charged with a crime and an FIR was filed
against them. As the trial progressed, Kumar passed away. The case against the co-accused
was decided, and he was found guilty. Additionally, both the high court and the Supreme
Court maintained the convictions of the co-accused.3

ISSUES OF THE CASE

• To what extent, given the specifics of this case, the punishment meted out to the defendant
was warranted?
• Whether sections 362, 302/34 of IPC were rightly implemented while the case was going
on in the court?

3
Murugan v. State of Tamil Nadu (2018) S.C.C. 0486 (India).
LEGAL HISTORY
Every time there is a murder conviction in India, we read that the court ruled the accused was
responsible for the crime under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court may impose the
death penalty or a sentence of life in prison upon the convicted. The significance of the Indian
Penal Code Section 302 cannot be overstated. Only those charged with murder are brought to trial
under this law. If a murder suspect is found guilty, he or she will face the penalties outlined in
Section 302. Those found guilty of murder face the death penalty or a lengthy jail sentence,
depending on the circumstances of the crime. The Court gives primary weight to the accused's
motives and intentions in murder cases. In cases falling under this provision, the accused’s motive
and intent must be established.
The death penalty refers to the legal process by which a person is sentenced to death by the state
for a particularly terrible offense. There are very few situations where the death sentence is applied
in India. As of 1955, the death penalty was replaced by life in prison without the possibility of
parole. Murder can also be punished with life in prison under Section 302. Although life in prison
does not carry the same level of violence as the death penalty, it nonetheless has repercussions for
the offender and society as a whole. The same penalty must be applied to everyone who is found
guilty of the same crime. Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act 4 allows for the use of a co-
confession accused in a trial. The co-confession accused is highly probative and will damage not
just himself but also the other defendants. According to the principle of parity, punishment for one
crime should be comparable to that for another committed by the same group of people. With this
rule in place, sentencing can be done in a uniform and fair manner.
Specific sections of Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code are available if certain conditions are
met. Section 302 may be used only in those instances that meet certain requirements. If it's not
finished, then Section 302 can't be used and any other section can. Although the court will take
into account the defendant's state of mind when deciding whether or not to find him guilty of
murder under Section 302, there are situations in which a person murders another without
intending to kill the perpetrator. Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code5 is applied in place of
Section 302 in such instances. The penalty for murder is specified in Section 304, which states that

4 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1974480/
5

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/409589/#:~:text=Punishment%20for%20culpable%20homicide%20not,which%20the
%20death%20is%20caused
the offender must serve a mandatory minimum of 10 years in jail or a maximum of life in prison
without the possibility of parole. Other high-profile cases where life sentences were handed down
include the Tandoor scandal, Jessica Lal's, and Nitish Katara's murders. Similarly, in 2012, the
Madhya Pradesh Court confirmed the order of death sentence-a-death in the Brajendra Singh6
case based on Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. After a murderer's guilt has been established
by evidence and testimony, they are given a fitting punishment. In all of these cases, the court
ruled that the accused intended to kill someone.
It's hard to make out the true motives behind this action. However, not all killings occur in unclean
environments. Since the inception of the Indian Penal Code, courts have struggled with the
dilemma of how to classify a certain case. The above circumstances may be simply separated into
two categories based on a plain reading of the relevant provisions of the Code; yet, when it comes
to practical implementation, courts frequently encounter this predicament. Confusion arises when
it is not obvious from the evidence whether the perpetrator intended to only injure the victim
physically (which would not be murder) or whether there was an explicit purpose to kill the victim
(which would establish a clear case of murder). The murders. The word "intent," which appears to
play a crucial role in both sets of rules, can easily lead to misunderstandings. Consequently, you
should think about the villains' motivations. A murder occurs when there is a premeditated,
deliberate plan to kill someone, as opposed to an act of violence motivated solely by momentary
rage or provocation. Alternatively, responsible homicide describes a killing that was not
premeditated, such as one that occurred during a fight or out of a fit of rage brought on by the
perpetrator's provocation or mental instability.
A "person guilty of second degree" could be used to describe the other. It is a crime under Section
304, subsection 1 of the Penal Code. Then there's the "third-degree criminal house." This is the
least lethal method of suicide with the associated punishment. Part II of Section 304 has three
levels of punishment, with this being the least severe.
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980)7 established a precedent limiting the court's discretion in
imposing the death penalty. The death penalty was abolished as a standard practice, to be applied
only in exceptional cases, and then only after documenting the unique justification for applying
the maximum possible penalty, which was never then carried out. No returns are allowed. The

6 https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68841692/
7
AIR 1980 SC 898, 1980 CriLJ 636, 1982 (1) SCALE 713, (1980) 2 SCC 684, 1983 1 SCR 145
phrase "rare as hen's teeth" has not yet been defined, but the courts' attention has been drawn to
the preservation of human life, the maintenance of civilized standards, and the rehabilitation of
offenders. When deciding whether or not to execute a criminal, the focus should be on the
offender's behavior, not the crime itself. The courts place the utmost importance on the notion of
proportionality of punishment to crime, victim, and offender.
JUDGEMENT
In this case, the victim’s father was brutally murdered. The accused and the co-accused were
arrested by police. However, during the trial, the accused died, and the ongoing case against the
accused was suspended whereas the trial against the co-accused continued. The court examined 12
witnesses, stamped 20 exhibits, and made 15 material artifacts to demonstrate the charges.
During the trial, the Appellant was addressed under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 to clarify the conditions appearing against him, but he rejected the allegations,
including the conditions, without offering any clarification. On August 2, 2006, an additional
session judge found the appellant culpable and convicted him of the offense punishable under
sections 3648 and 304 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code9, and sentenced him to life
imprisonment under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code10.
The co-accused filed an appeal in High Court. However, the High Court upheld the decision made
by the bench in the lower court, and the accused filed a special leave petition in the Supreme Court.
It is the rule of law that the Supreme Court of India, acting under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India11, will not interfere with simultaneous discoveries made by lower courts against an
accused person if those lower courts "did not either think about the applicable piece of evidence
or there exists any backwardness or/and silliness in the discoveries recorded by both the Courts."
The Court said that the two lower courts were right when they said that the Appellant's conviction
was based on circumstantial evidence, which the prosecution was able to prove in this case.
The court approved the decision of the two courts below by citing the following evidence:
● The reason for killing the deceased was that he didn't agree to the main appellant's plan to
marry his daughter.
● As cousins, the appellant and the main appellant knew each other very well.
● Both went to the house of the deceased together to invite him to dinner at the home of the
main appellant.
● Fourth, all three of them went to the main appellant's house for dinner.
● The main appellant said he was guilty.
● The weapon and clothes were found.

8
IPC. s. 364, cl. b.
9
By Act 27 of 1870, s. 1, for s. 34.
10
IPC. s. 304.
11
INDIA CONST. art. 136, cl. 1.
 ● The dead body was found near the iron cot where the victim who died had his last dinner
with the accused and co-accused.
The theory that the accused was last seen with the dead person is strong evidence against the
accused, even though it is only circumstantial evidence. In these situations, the person who is being
blamed can be held responsible for the crime for which he is being blamed unless he can clear up
the facts against him. In this case, it was right that the two courts below ruled against the party
appealing, and we can't find a good reason to change this decision.
The learned attorney for the appellant's argument that the current appellant is entitled to a clean
acquittal because nothing remains against her after Kumar's death for the prosecution to use against
her was not taken seriously by the court. Kumar was the main accused and died without going to
trial. This submission is not acceptable to the court. According to the prosecution of the appellant,
Kumar's death had no bearing on the case. The appellant was one of the two accused who shared
a common desire to kill Murugan, and he was caught up until the very end actively engaged in the
crime alongside the other accused, who passed away. The Apex Court declared that the two Courts
below were correct in finding the appellant guilty of committing the alleged crimes by properly
valuing the eyewitness testimony of the prosecution, even though the co-death accused had no
bearing on the decision regarding the appellant's participation in the commission of a crime.
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
When it comes to criminal cases, Indian courts are very strict. Even if a co-accused person wasn't
the main accused or didn't do the crime, the courts think they should be held as responsible as the
main accused. As having the intent to commit a crime also helps the field of crime or gives the
main suspect more confidence that he or she will do something illegal. It makes everyone
responsible for what happens. Because the accused all had the same bad intention, they all took
the same illegal path.
No matter what role they played or how much they helped, if their main goal was to commit a
crime, they will all be held equally responsible. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code says that if
several people do the same act with the same goal in mind, each person is just as responsible for it
as if he had done it by himself. Co-accused can't say that they weren't the main ones.
If the co-accused didn't deny helping the main accused and giving support while the main accused
was committing a crime, that shows that the co-accused also had bad intentions and was just as
much a part of the crime as the main accused. The fact that there was a common goal is enough
proof.
This case is similar to Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor12, in which the court said that
even if a co-accused didn't do anything while the main accused was committing a crime, the fact
that he stood outside the door and kept watching is considered to be part of the crime and proves
that they both wanted to commit a crime.
This kind of verdict not only names the main suspect but also the people who helped them. Indeed,
there may not have been a common goal, but the court decides whether or not there was a goal
based on the facts and evidence. Whether someone is responsible for a crime under section 34 or
section 149 depends on how the crime was done.
Under the chapters IPC General Explanation and Of Offenses Against Public Tranquility, two
sections talk about common intent and common goals. Sometimes it's hard to show with proof
that they had the same goal. And how many people were part of the Unlawful Assembly and what
did they all have in common?
In different cases, however, the Supreme Court has gotten rid of these ambiguities by looking at
the statistics and facts of each case. The Law Commission of India13 also suggested that some parts

12
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925) 27 BOMLR 148.
13 Law Commission of India (42nd Report IPC) 1971.
of the law be changed to make things clearer and help people understand them better. Even after a
lot of work, questions come up about which laws apply to which of the two, and both investigators
and rate sheet filers make mistakes in this area.
CONCLUSION
When determining guilt, criminal intent is the gold standard of mens rea. In criminal law, the
concept of intent carries significant symbolic weight. Homicide and other extremely serious crimes
fall under this category because of the prominence of the mental aspect at this level of the criminal
justice system. To conclude that the two accused people killed the deceased with the same goal in
mind. The fact that the appellant couldn't prove his innocence beyond a reasonable doubt and that
the prosecution was able to build a chain of circumstantial evidence against him without any
breaks, along with the theory that he was last seen with the deceased, made the lower court and
the high court even more likely to find him guilty.
 REFERENCES
CASE LAWS
1. Brijendra Singh v. The State of Madhya Pradesh Appeal (Civil) 7764 Of 2001.
2. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1982) 3 SCC 24, 1983 1 SCR 145 a.
3. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (1925) 27 BOMLR 148.

STATUTES
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 364, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 302, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)
Indian Penal Code, 1860, s. 34, No. 45, Acts of Parliament, 1860 (India)
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, s. 313, No. 02, Acts of Parliament (India)

CONSTITUTION
INDIA CONST. art. 136

ONLINE SOURCES
Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/695990/, (last visited 3 Sep. 2022)
Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1560742/, (last visited 25 Sep. 2022)
Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1974480/, (last visited 1 Oct. 2022)
Indian Kanoon,
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/409589/#:~:text=Punishment%20for%20culpable%20homicide%20not,whic
h%20the%20death%20is%20caused, (last visited 3 Oct. 2022)
Indian Kanoon, https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68841692/, (last visited 14 Sep. 2022)
Law Rato, https://lawrato.com/indian-kanoon/ipc/section-302, (last visited 25 Sep. 2022)