Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Yaser Arafath
Yaser Arafath
Yaser Arafath
751 of 2019
RESERVED ON 04.02.2021
DELIVERED ON 17.03.2021
CORAM:
Referred Trial under Section 366 Cr.P.C. on the judgment and order dated
26.09.2019 passed in S.C. No.37 of 2016 on the file of the IV Additional District
and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.
Page 1 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.09.2019 passed in S.C. No.37 of
2016 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.
For appellant Mr.V. Karthic, Sr. Counsel
in Crl.Appeal for Mr. N. Saravanan
COMMON JUDGMENT
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
1.2 At the outset, it may be necessary to put the records straight by noting
that Raheja Centre has been typed in the depositions in Tamil with weird spellings
as the Tamil language does not have the letter “ha”. Both sides agreed sans demur
all gated communities are, it has its own security and maintenance personnel.
1.4 The deceased in this case is one Saroja, aged 54 years. She was
living with her husband Natarajan (not examined), her son Mahendra Kumar
Page 2 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
1.5 Saroja was a homemaker. Her husband Natarajan, her son Mahendra
Kumar (P.W.4) and her daughter-in-law Periya Nayagi @ Amudha were all
employed. So, Saroja used to remain alone at home when her other family
1.6 Apartment No.C-002 was owned by one Balaji, who, in turn, had
given it to Dream Home Solutions run by one Visweswaran (P.W.1) for using it as
Periya Nayagi @ Amudha returned home from work, they did not find Saroja.
They were under the impression that Saroja would have gone to one of their
relatives’ house and therefore, they went about looking out for her. Since they
Page 3 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
were unable to locate Saroja, they felt something fishy and so, on 16.02.2013,
Natarajan gave a police complaint (Ex.P.46), based on which, a case in B4- Race
missing”. In the said complaint, Natarajan gave the descriptions of the ornaments
1.10 The said complaint and the FIR reached the jurisdictional Magistrate
on 18.02.2013 at 10.00 a.m. While the family members of Saroja were on the look
out for her, a foul smell started emanating from Apartment No.C-002 from
of Raheja Centre.
apartment thinking that it would quell the foul smell, during which time, the
appellant was present. However, that did not abate the foul smell and so, on
himself came to Apartment No. C-002 along with Karunanidhi (P.W.3). Raman
(P.W.2), Manager of Raheja Centre, who has his office in the complex itself, was
also present. Together, when they rang the calling bell of Apartment No.C-002,
there was no response from inside. Visweswaran (P.W.1) tried to open the front
Page 4 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
door with the spare key which he had, but, in vain. Hence, the trio went to the rear
side of the apartment as it had a door. They found the rear door open and hence,
entered the apartment and felt the stench coming out of two VIP suitcases they
found there. When they opened the two VIP suitcases, they found them to contain
1.12 Visweswaran (P.W.1) went to the police station and gave a complaint
registered a case in B4, Race Course P.S. Cr.No.402 of 2013 on 21.02.2013 under
Section 302 IPC and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.33), which reached the
jurisdictional Magistrate at 7 p.m. on the same day, as could be seen from the
endorsement thereon.
Inspector of Police, who went to Apartment No.C-002 at 2.00 p.m. and prepared
the rough sketch (Ex.P.39). He also prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.3) in
1.14 From the place of occurrence, he seized a red colour VIP suitcase
(M.O.1) from the front bedroom on the northern side under the cover of mahazar
Page 5 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
seized another red colour VIP suitcase (M.O.2) under cover of mahazar (Ex.P.5),
Kumar (P.W.4), who were living in the opposite apartment, viz., Apartment No.C-
005, came to Apartment No.C-002 and identified the human body which was in
inquest over the body parts that were recovered from the VIP suitcase (M.O.1) and
the first inquest report is Ex.P.40. From 18.15 hrs. to 19.45 hrs., he conducted
inquest over the trunk of the body that was recovered from the VIP suitcase
(M.O.2) and the second inquest report is Ex.P.41. Thereafter, he assembled all the
dismembered parts that were found in the both the suitcases (M.Os.1 and 2) and
conducted a third inquest from 20.15 hrs. to 22.00 hrs. and the third inquest report
is Ex.P.42. It is pertinent to state here that during the inquests, the police observed
Page 6 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
that the thighs were missing. Chandrasekar (P.W.28) then dispatched the body
certificate (Ex.P.15).
“On dissection of available upper part of the neck, the ante mortem
reddish contusion measuring 3 x 2 cm noted over left side neck at the level
of superior cornu of thyroid cartilage, which was found fractured. Another
ante mortem reddish contusion 4 x 2 cm. noted over right side neck at the
level of thyroid cartilage. The upper part of thyroid cartilage found
fractured in its middle with surrounding tissue contusion reddish in colour
(ante mortem). Hyoid bone found intact. Skull and dura intact. Brain
found liquefied.
Rest of the injuries on the body of the deceased were found to be post-mortem in
nature.
1.19 The viscera and vaginal swabs were sent for chemical analysis to the
Tamil Nadu Forensic Science Department and the viscera report (Ex.P.16) states
that no poison was detected in the visceral organs of the deceased. Biology report
(Ex.P.17) states that spermatozoa was not detected in the swabs taken from the
Page 7 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
“OPINION:
As per the examination of the available parts of the body, the deceased would
appear to have died of asphyxia due to violent ante mortem external
compression of the neck. The time since death could not be calculated due to
arrested decomposed state of the body.”
1.21 Even after the body parts were removed out of the apartment, the foul
smell continued to emanate and this prompted the inmates of the complex to
started to search for the place from where the foul smell came. At last, he found
the smell coming from the top of a cupboard in the bedroom on the northern side
and when he started scrapping the cement, he found a pair of thighs kept in a
plastic cover. These parts were recovered and a fourth inquest was conducted in
the presence of panchayatdars from 15 hrs. to 18 hrs. on 27.02.2013 and the fourth
inquest report is Ex.P.43. After the inquest, the pair of thighs was sent to the
Page 8 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
Opinion: The examined thighs belong to a part of the body of a female and
they match with the body of a female mentioned in the post-mortem no.499/13
dated 22.02.2013 and Cr.No.402/2013 of B-4 P.S.”
1.22 DNA profiling of Natarajan and Mahendra Kumar (P.W.4) was done
with the DNA extracted from the portions of the body that were recovered on
“Conclusion:
From the DNA typing results of the above samples, it is found that:
i. The bones in items 1,3,4 and 5 (of ref 2) belong to a same human
female individual.
ii. The person to whom the bones in items 1,3,4 and 5 (of ref 2) belong
was (sic to) the biological mother of Mr. N. Mahendra Kumar.”
intelligence that the appellant was in Visakhapatnam and so, a police team headed
local police and apprehended the appellant on 02.03.2013 at 8.30 a.m. in Hotel
Page 9 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
Ravinder (P.W.13) and one Ramesh Babu (not examined), in which, he gave lots
of information to the police which was hitherto unknown to them. Suffice it to say
that he disclosed to the police that he had assumed the pseudo name Nazir and had
Tirunelveli by a car and had pledged some jewels in Muthoot Finance. He further
disclosed the shop where he purchased the two VIP suitcases (M.Os.1 and 2) and
First seizure:
1.25 From the custody of the appellant, the police seized the following
Visakhapatnam:
Page 10 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
Magistrate, Visakhapatnam along with the confession statement and the seizure
statement and seizure mahazar and thereafter, issued a transit warrant to remove
Second seizure:
the disclosure that had already been made by the appellant at Visakhapatnam, a
Maruti car bearing Regn.No.TAR 2006 (M.O.16) was seized in the parking lot of
Raheja Centre on 04.03.2013 between 8.45 a.m. and 9.15 a.m. in the presence of
witnesses one Magesh Kumar (P.W.12) and Ravi (not examined) under the cover
of mahazar Ex.P.7.
Third Seizure:
1.28 The following items were seized on 04.03.2013 at 10.30 a.m. from
beneath a bush in Palakkad Main Road under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.8) in the
Page 11 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
Fourth seizure:
1.29 The following items were seized on 04.03.2013 at 12.30 p.m. from
Page 12 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
Fifth seizure:
1.30 After effecting the aforesaid seizures, the appellant was produced
him in judicial custody. Thereafter, once again, police custody of the appellant
was taken on 05.03.2013 and on the showing of the appellant, a godhumai model
gold chain weighing around 54 gms. (M.O.6) was seized from Muthoot Finance in
Chandrasekar (P.W.28).
1.31 On the directions of the superior officials, the case was transferred to
the file of the Inspector of Police, (Crime), viz., Bala Murali Sundaram (P.W.29),
who examined some witnesses including experts and obtained some reports.
Haameed (P.W.30), Inspector of Police, who completed the investigation and filed
Coimbatore, against the appellant under Sections 302,380 and 201 IPC and the
Page 13 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in
S.C.No.37 of 2016 and was made over to the IV Additional District and Sessions
1.34 The trial Court framed charges under Sections 302, 380 and 201 IPC
against the appellant and when questioned, the appellant pleaded not guilty.
1.36 When the appellant was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he merely denied the same and
1.37 No witness was examined on the side of the appellant, but, two
Coimbatore Medical College and Ex.D2, Dog Squad report, were marked in the
1.38 After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the
trial Court, by judgment and order dated 26.09.2019, convicted and sentenced the
appellant as under:
Provisions under
S.No. Sentence
which convicted
Page 14 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
The sentences (1) and (2) above were ordered to run concurrently.
1.39 Since the trial Court had awarded death penalty for the offence under
Section 302 IPC, the case was referred to this Court for confirmation under
Section 366 Cr.P.C. The appellant also has filed an appeal in Crl.A. No.751 of
Mr.N.Saravanan, learned counsel on record for the appellant and Mr. K. Prabakar,
placed reliance on the following passage from the celebrated judgment of the
Supreme Court in Hanumant vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 and submitted that
the evidence in this case should be tested on the anvil of the law propounded in
1
AIR 1952 SC 343
Page 15 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
always the danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal
proof and therefore it is right to recall the warning addressed by Baron
Alderson to the jury in Reg v. Hodge [(1838) 2 Lew 227] where he said:
One can have no two opinions on the aforesaid proposition of law and therefore,
we now embark upon to scrutinize the evidence on record bearing in mind the
aforesaid passage.
A. Existence of Saroja:
Page 16 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
4 Though the defence has not denied that one Saroja existed and that
she is no more, yet, it is necessary for us to discuss the evidence on this aspect
living with his parents, Natarajan and Saroja, in Apartment No.C-005 from 2001;
Saroja, all the others had left for work in the morning and his son had gone to
school; around 2 p.m., his father Natarajan returned home and found the door of
their apartment open, but, his mother was not there; in the evening, when his wife
and he returned home, his father told this to him and they all contacted their
relatives in order to find out if Saroja had gone to their house; for the next two
days, they went about in search of Saroja and when they became clueless, they
went to the police station where Natarajan lodged a written complaint, based on
months after his wife’s death and before the trial began. The fact that Natarajan
Page 17 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
lodged the complaint (Ex.P.46) has been spoken to not only by his son Mahendra
Race Course Police Station, who, in his evidence, has stated that on 16.02.2013,
one Natarajan came to the police station at 9.00 a.m. and lodged a written
complaint stating that his wife Saroja, aged 54 years, went missing since
13.02.2013. Chinnappan (P.W.31) has further stated that he received the complaint
and registered a case in Race Course P.S. Cr.No.366 of 2013 for ‘woman missing’
and prepared the printed FIR. The complaint and the printed FIR were marked as
Ex.P.46.
7 A perusal of the complaint and FIR (Ex.P.46) shows that they reached
complaint in Ex.P.46 that was lodged by Natarajan shows that Saroja was wearing
has not contended that he is not the son of Saroja nor denied that he was living in
Page 18 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
Apartment No.C-005 with her. Apart from the evidence of Mahendra Kumar
(P.W.4), we also have the evidence of Raman (P.W.2), Manager of Raheja Centre
evidence, have stated that the apartment in which Saroja was residing belongs to
her family. To cap it all, the DNA reports (Exs.P.36 to P.38) issued by Thara
(P.W.36), clearly state that the DNA extracted from the dead body is that of the
biological mother of Mahendra Kumar (P.W.4). The fact that Saroja went missing
from 13.02.2013 has been established by the prosecution through the evidence of
Mahendra Kumar (P.W.4) and the complaint (Ex.P.46) that was lodged by
Visweswaran (P.W.1), in his evidence, has stated that he is into real estate
Page 19 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
business and also takes properties on lease for letting them out as service
apartments; he had taken on lease two apartments in Raheja Centre, viz., C-002
(P.W.3) and one Raja (not examined) to manage the apartments as service
apartments; in August 2012, the appellant approached him for accommodation and
10 The learned Senior Counsel for the defence contended that there is
absolutely no document that has been marked by the prosecution to show that the
appellant had taken Apartment No.C-002 for his occupation. It is true that the
prosecution had not marked any document, but, can that, by itself, lead this Court
to infer that the appellant had not taken Apartment No.C-002 for his
accommodation? The fact that the appellant had taken Apartment No.C-002 has
been spoken to not only by Visweswaran (P.W.1) but also by Raman (P.W.2),
Apartment No.C-002, has, in his evidence, clearly stated that he knows the
appellant and that the appellant was staying in the opposite apartment, viz.,
Apartment No.C-002.
Page 20 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
11 This Court cannot lose sight of the fact that service apartments
culture has been imported from the West where the landlord would enter into an
agreement with a real estate agent and get his monthly rents regularly leaving it to
the real estate agent to furnish the apartment and exploit it commercially.
conditioners and other amenities for the tenants to stay comfortably. We have no
hold that they had falsely deposed that the appellant was in occupation of
Apartment No.C-002. Even in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the
appellant had not denied specifically that he was not in occupation of Apartment
No.C-002 or along with him, there was someone else also on a sharing basis.
agreement or any such document to prove that the appellant had taken Apartment
No.C-002 from Dream Home Solutions run by Visweswaran (P.W.1) for his
Page 21 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
stated that on 19.02.2013, some residents complained to him that a foul smell is
(P.W.1); Visweswaran (P.W.1) sent Karunanidhi (P.W.3) to look into the matter
and if required, to spray insecticide; Karunanidhi (P.W.3) and another person went
to Apartment No.C-002 and sprayed insecticide, despite which, the foul smell did
managing the service apartments in Raheja Centre; the appellant had taken
Apartment C-002 for his accommodation; on 20.02.2013, he, along with one Raju
residents were complaining that a foul smell was coming from there; at that time,
around 11.00 a.m., Raman (P.W.2) contacted him and told him that a foul smell
was coming from Apartment No.C-002 and asked him to attend to it; therefore, he
Page 22 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
(P.W.3) and Raju; he went to Apartment No.C-002 and rang the calling bell, but,
none opened the door; so, he tried to open the door with the spare key that he was
having, but, he could not; so, he went along with Karunanidhi (P.W.3) and Raju to
the rear side of the apartment and found that the rear door was open; he entered
the apartment from the rear door and found that the front door was bolted from
inside; therefore, he removed the bolt and opened the front door; he went to the
bedroom on the north side and found a red colour VIP suitcase; he also found
another red colour VIP suitcase in the other bedroom on the southern side; he
found cement fissures in the zip portion of the suitcase; he opened the first
suitcase and found severed parts of hands, legs and head; in the second suitcase,
he found a trunk; he immediately went to B-4 Race Course Police Station and
lodged a complaint (Ex.P.1); the police came to the place of occurrence, by which
time, neighbours also had gathered; when all the items were removed by the
police, Mahendra Kumar (P.W.4) saw the dead body and identified the body as
that of his mother. It is pertinent to point out that Raman (P.W.2) and Karunanidhi
aspect.
19.02.2013 onwards, a bad smell was coming from Apartment No.C-002 and so,
Page 23 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
he, along with other residents, complained to Raman (P.W.2), Manager of Raheja
Centre and asked him to look into it; on 21.02.2013, when the smell was
intolerable, he, along with others, once again, complained to Raman (P.W.2) and
on the same day, around 11.30 a.m., Visweswaran (P.W.1) and Karunanidhi
(P.W.3) came to Apartment No.C-002, entered the apartment from the rear side
and opened the front door from inside; when the front door was opened, the foul
smell was intense; they found two suitcases with body parts and so, they went to
the police station to lodge a complaint; when the police came and removed the
contents from the suitcases, he also saw the dismembered parts; after having had a
look at the head portion, nose ring and saree, he identified the body as that of his
mother.
18 All these had taken place in the course of a sequence of events, viz.,
to abate the foul smell, Visweswaran (P.W.1), Raman (P.W.2) and Karunanidhi
(P.W.3) entered the flat through the rear side entrance; opened the front door from
(P.W.3) found the smell coming out from two VIP suitcases; so, they opened the
two suitcases and saw the parts of a human body; Visweswaran (P.W.1) went to
the police station; Chandrasekar (P.W.28), Inspector of Police, came to the place,
Page 24 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
opened the two suitcases and laid down the dismembered parts; and Mahendra
Kumar (P.W.4) came to Apartment No.C-002, saw the head portion, nose ring and
the saree and identified the body as that of his mother Saroja.
19 It is not the case of the defence that the two suitcases containing the
Thereafter, the police conducted three inquests as stated above and sent the
operations were taking place, the appellant was not available there.
attempted to open the main door with the spare key, but, he could not. That is
because, the door was not locked by using the key, but, was locked by bolting the
latch from inside. In other words, had the occupant of Apartment No.C-002 gone
out through the front door, he would have locked the apartment with the key
available with him. On the contrary, the front door was found to be latched from
inside which was opened by Visweswaran (P.W.1) after he gained entry through
the rear door which was kept open. Therefore, it is obvious that the occupant of
Apartment No.C-002 had latched the front door from inside and had gone out
Page 25 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
concluding that the dismembered parts of Saroja were recovered from two
22 The sequence of events, viz., that a foul smell was emanating from
apartment on that day; the foul smell did not abate and so, when the apartment was
checked on 21.02.2013, the dismembered parts were found from two suitcases and
the appellant was not available, does cast a burden on the appellant to show the
circumstances under which the two suitcases with the dismembered parts found
their way into the apartment under his occupation. The prosecution case does not
stop with this. The prosecution case continues with the arrest and recovery of the
ornaments and apparel worn by Saroja on the disclosure made by the appellant
artificial. It is true that when the two suitcases were examined on 21.02.2013 and
inquests conducted, the thigh portion of the dead body was not available. The
Page 26 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
thigh portion was recovered subsequently on 27.02.2013, because, the foul smell
24 Karunanidhi (P.W.3), in his evidence, has stated that after the police
completed their enquiry, they handed over the keys of the apartment to him with a
specific instruction not to clean it; he was retaining the spare key of the apartment;
the neighbours once again started complaining that a foul smell was coming from
the apartment; so, he approached the police and sought their permission to clean
and observed that the same smell continued to exist; therefore, he alerted the
with the police party and started making a roving search; during the search, the
police found cement fissures above the cupboard in the left bedroom and when
they scraped the cement patch work, they found a pair of thighs kept in a plastic
another inquest in the presence of panchayatdars in Ex.P.43 and sent the pair of
thighs to the Government Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore, where, Dr.
Jeyasingh (P.W.21) performed autopsy and opined that the pair of thighs matched
with the body of the female mentioned in post-mortem no.499 of 2013 dated
Page 27 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
need for the police to plant the pair of thighs in the same apartment and make it
look as if they discovered it after they were alerted by Karunanidhi (P.W.3). That
Kulandaivelu (P.W.15) and Dr. Jeyasingh (P.W.21) should go out of the way to
support the prosecution. Just because the police were not able to retrieve the pair
be a farce. In fact, the prosecution case appears to be more credible and truthful.
homicidal violence and her dismembered body parts were recovered from
was a make-believe as could be seen from the fact that the arrest was allegedly
(P.W.13). Chandrasekar (P.W.28), in his evidence, has stated that while the police
were intensely searching for the appellant, they received intelligence that the
Page 28 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
Police (CCB) and himself, with a party of Constables, left for Visakhapatnam and
Hotel Meghana near Leela Mahal junction; he requested two Tamil speaking
persons, viz., Ravinder (P.W.13) and one Ramesh Babu (not examined) to stand as
witnesses for recording the confession and recovering the materials from the
person. The presence of persons knowing Tamil in Andhra Pradesh and persons
knowing Telugu in Tamil Nadu is not something uncommon. Tamil Nadu and
Andhra Pradesh share a long common border and in fact, Andhra Pradesh was part
Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The confession to police becomes relevant under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act only when there is discovery of a fact that was
hitherto unknown to the police based on the information supplied by the accused.
Recoveries:
recorded by the police immediately after his arrest in Visakhapatnam and the
Page 29 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
the appellant was produced there for transit remand. The confession contains a
wealth of details, which, of course, cannot be relied upon in view of the ban under
29 Now, let us examine the recoveries that were effected by the police
above, the police recovered M.Os.34 to 42 and Ex.P.6 under mahazar (Ex.P.12) at
following address:
“Yasar Arafat J.
S/o Jahir Hussain P.J.
1E/3,227 Periya Kothuba Pallivasal South
East Street
Melapalayam
Tirunelveli”
As stated above, the appellant was a native of Tirunelveli and had come to
Visweswaran (P.W.1) for his occupation. The defence submission that the
prosecution had not filed any document to show the identity of the appellant when
he took Apartment No.C-002 from Visweswaran (P.W.1) and therefore, that fact
has not been proved, does not carry weight with us. Visweswaran (P.W.1), in his
cross-examination, has stated that he handed over the documents that he had with
Page 30 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
regard to the identity of the appellant to the police and that the police also cross-
checked and found that the appellant was a resident of Tirunelveli. This statement
in the inquest reports, the Tirunelveli address of the appellant finds a place. The
police seized the R.C. book (Ex.P.6) of the Maruti car bearing Regn. No.TAR
2006 and the car was seized in the parking lot of Raheja Centre subsequently on
persons through whom he had purchased the Maruti car and accordingly, the
police located Basheer @ Basheer Ahmed (P.W.11) and Soundar Rajan (P.W.9),
car brokers, who acted as middlemen in the transaction for the appellant’s
purchased the same from one Gopinath (not examined). Senthil Kumar (P.W.8)
and Soundar Rajan (P.W.9) identified the appellant in the dock during trial,
whereas, the appellant was not present on the day of examination of Basheer
(P.W.11) and Basheer (P.W.11) has stated that he knows the appellant well.
Senthil Kumar (P.W.8), Soundar Rajan (P.W.9) and Basheer Ahmed (P.W.11)
have stated in their evidence that the car belonged to Senthil Kumar (P.W.8);
Soundar Rajan (P.W.9) and Basheer Ahmed (P.W.11) facilitated the sale of the car
to the appellant for Rs.51,000/- and that the appellant paid Rs.40,000/- as advance
Page 31 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
and agreed to pay the balance at the time of delivery of the R.C.book. The R.C.
book was delivered on 19.02.2013, on which date, the appellant paid the balance
of Rs.11,000/- and the R.C. book was recovered from the appellant at the time of
his arrest.
paragraph 1.28 above, the police seized 2 gold thalis (M.O.7), talisman together
with safety pin in yellow colour thread (M.O.30), pair of anklets (M.O.12) and other
implements and instruments about which we will discuss a little later. The fact
that two gold thalis (M.O.7), thali thread (M.O.11) and pair of anklets (M.O.12)
belonged to Saroja stood established via the evidence of Mahendra Kumar (P.W.4)
who identified the said items during trial and stated that they were worn by his
mother Saroja.
etc. which were also seized under mahazar (Ex.P.8), these implements were
probably used by the appellant to dissect the body parts of Saroja and it will not be
illegitimate to draw such an inference in the light of the fact that the body parts of
Saroja were found in two VIP suitcases (M.Os. 1 and 2) and the two thighs were
Page 32 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
(M.O.29) of Roshan Bag Stores, through which, they located Rajesh (P.W.19), a
staff of Roshan Bag Stores, who, in his evidence, has identified the appellant and
stated that on 16.02.2013, around 9.30 p.m., the appellant came to their shop and
purchased two VIP suitcases; he identified the suitcases as M.Os.1 and 2; he also
handed over to the police the CCTV footages to show the purchases of suitcases
(M.Os.1 and 2) by the appellant from his shop on the said day.
34 The fourth seizure which assumes great significance, has been set out
in paragraph 1.29 above. On the disclosure of the appellant, the police located
Mahalakshmi Finance and examined its owner Dilip Kumar (P.W.14). From
(M.O.10) and two gold rings (M.Os.8 and 9) were recovered. Dilip Kumar
(P.W.14) identified the appellant in the dock as the person who came to his shop
on 13.02.2013, introduced himself as Nazir and pledged the 2 gold rings (M.Os.8
& 9). The description of these ornaments finds a place in the ‘woman missing’ FIR
(Ex.P.46) that was registered by the police on the complaint of Natarajan, Saroja’s
Page 33 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
disclosed to the police in his confession the information that he assumed the
pseudo name Nazir. This information led to the discovery of the fact that he had
given the name Nazir while pledging the ornaments with Dilip Kumar (P.W.14) of
Mahalakshmi Finance on 13.02.2013. The police seized the pawn tickets (M.Os.32
and 33) from the office of Mahalakshmi Finance which bears the name, Nazir, S/o
Hussain. From these evidences, we can safely draw the inference that on
35 Lastly, the fifth seizure, viz., the Godhumai model gold chain (M.O.6)
mahazar (Ex.P.23), which has been set out in paragraph 1.30 above, also assumes
importance. On the information provided by the appellant, the police took him to
examined and the Godhumai model gold chain (M.O.6) was recovered. This
Godhumai model gold chain also finds a place in the ‘woman missing’ FIR
identified the appellant as the person who came on 15.02.2013 to Muthoot Finance
and pledged the Godhumai model gold chain (M.O.6), which has been identified
Page 34 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
36 Mr. Karthic placed strong reliance on Exs.D.1 and D.2 and submitted
that they create a dent in the case of the prosecution. He developed his arguments
Officer has stated that he was unable to identify any distinctive marks on Saroja’s
body. We do not understand as to how this could cause any dent in the prosecution
case, especially when Mahendra Kumar (P.W.4), who lives in the opposite
that of his mother’s. Be that as it may, the DNA profiling has established beyond
cavil that the deceased was Saroja, mother of Mahendra Kumar (P.W.4).
stated that there was a tool box and a shirt near Saroja’s body, Mr. Karthic
contended that the police had failed to seize them which is fatal to their case. It is
true that the police did not seize the shirt and tool box. But, such remissness in
investigation, has not, in any manner, affected the kernel of the prosecution
that the appellant alone had taken Apartment No.C-002 from Visweswaran
(P.W.1) for his stay. Had it been the appellant’s case that along with him, yet
another person was also staying in Apartment No.C-002, then, the burden is on
Page 35 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
nor in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has the appellant taken any such
defence. Therefore, we are unable to hold that Exs.D.1 and D.2 have, in any way,
prosecution has proved the following facts beyond all reasonable doubt.
a) Saroja was living with her family in Apartment No.C-005. Her son
Mahendra Kumar (P.W.4) was a part of her family.
b) Visweswaran (P.W.1) had taken Apartment No.C-002 and was letting it out
as a service apartment. Karunanidhi (P.W.3) and Paramasivam (P.W.27)
were his employees and were actually managing the service apartment.
Page 36 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
j) The stench did not abate and so, on 21.02.2013, Visweswaran (P.W.1),
Raman (P.W.2) and Karunanidhi (P.W.3) entered the apartment through the
rear door and found the dismembered body parts of Saroja in the two
suitcases (M.Os.1 and 2). The appellant was not available and his
whereabouts were not known to anyone. A pair of thighs was missing.
k) The pair of thighs was recovered from the cemented portion of the cupboard
on 27.02.2013.
l) DNA profiling showed that the body parts that were recovered are those of
Saroja and Saroja was the mother of Mahendra Kumar (P.W.4).
o) The description of the ornaments finds a place in the ‘woman missing’ FIR
that was registered by the police on 16.02.2013 itself.
p) The evidence of the post-mortem doctors show that the death of Saroja was
due to strangulation.
The above proved facts unmistakably point to the guilt of the appellant and the
by the prosecution does pass muster the standards set by the Supreme Court in
Hanumant (supra).
viz., the desirability of awarding the hangman’s noose. Though the learned trial
Page 37 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
Judge has had the opportunity to see the witnesses, examine the circumstances and
come to the conclusion that the appellant deserves to die, we would like to strike a
discordant note.
nothing more or nothing less. In other words, in our view, this case does not fall
under the category of “rarest of rare cases” for awarding the death penalty. It is not
the case of the prosecution that the appellant went about sadistically dismembering
a living person. The post-mortem certificates (Exs.P.15 and P.32) clearly show
that Saroja’s death had occurred due to strangulation of her neck and all the other
injuries have been found to be post-mortem and not ante-mortem ones. After
having caused the death of Saroja for relieving the ornaments worn by her, the
appellant has dismembered her body parts in order to avoid detection. That is why,
he had stuffed the dismembered parts in two suitcases and had hidden a pair of
the two suitcases and avoid detection. Maybe, luck did not smile at him and the
intolerable pungent stench that emanated from the two suitcases and the cupboard
miserably betrayed him. There is no other material, much less any material worth
the salt, to show that the appellant had an intrinsic criminal propensity and would
Page 38 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
confirm the sentence of death that has been slapped by the trial Court on the
appellant and we substitute the same with life imprisonment together with a rider
that the appellant cannot be released before the expiry of 25 years of actual
say so in the light of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in
Union of India vs. Sriharan @ Murugan and others2. We are justified in adding
the rider, because, the appellant was not a stranger to Saroja. Being Saroja’s
neighbour, the appellant had laid a trap in which the former fell and lost her
precious life. Though the police case is that the appellant sought her help to light
the gas stove in his house, for which, she came with a lighter and he grabbed that
opportunity to finish her off, we have no legal evidence for all these, except the
police confession.
years old and Saroja was 54 years old. This significant age difference puts the
appellant in the position of Saroja’s son. The fact remains that a defenceless
quinquagenarian lady has been done to death for her ornaments by her neighbour
and hence, the latter deserves to be in prison for not less than 25 years.
offence under Section 302 IPC, but, modify the sentence therefor, to one of
2
(2016) 7 SCC 1
Page 39 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
imprisonment for life, with a further rider that the appellant shall not be released
woman.
43 As far as the conviction and sentences for the offences under Sections
380 and 201 IPC are concerned, we do not want to upset the same and they are
accordingly confirmed. However, the sentences for the said offences shall run
concurrently with that of the sentence of imprisonment for life for the offence
Page 40 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
42, supra, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The reference made by the learned IV
Page 41 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in
R.T. No.2 of 2019 & Crl.A. No.751 of 2019
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
and
V. SIVAGNANAM, J.
cad
17.03.2021
Page 42 of 42
http://www.judis.nic.in