IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.17974 OF 2012

IN THE MATTER OF
Senthilkumar V/s The State -Represented by The Inspector of Police

This is a murder case. The accused (A1- Senthil Kumar) and the deceased (Balasundari)
along with her child were living at D-2 Police Quarters in KK Nagar, Trichy. PW-
1(Sundharam) and PW- 3 (Sumathi) used to visit frequently the house of the accused. On
04.05.2002, PW-1 and PW-3, as usual, visited the house of the deceased. In the evening,
PW-3 left for her house. PW-1 alone stayed back at the house of the accused. At about
09.30 PM, the accused, who is a police officer returned from duty. The deceased and the
accused went to bed in the room of the house around 10.00 PM. PW-1 and the daughter
of the deceased were in the hall of the house, studying. At about 10.30 PM, PW-1 heard
the hue and cry of the deceased. PW-1 attempted to open the door of the room, where the
deceased and the accused were sleeping. But the door was bolted from inside.PW-1
opened the door by force. At that time, he found the accused cutting the neck of the
deceased by holding her mouth with left hand. On seeing PW-1, the accused pushed him
apart and ran away. The deceased died instantaneously. The trial court by its judgment
dated 07.10.2010, acquitted him of Section 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry
protection Act thereby acquitting him of dowry charges but found him guilty u/s 302 of
IPC thereby making him undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/.
Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is filed an appeal to the
Madras high court.
The Madras high court in its Judgement dated 22.12.2011 upheld the conviction of the
trial court and rejected the appeal.

Supreme Court Bail Status : The Hon’ble Supreme Court rejected bail on 12.12.2014
and ordered for expedited trial.

Date & Time of Incident :There exists a discrepancy in this regard as the trial court
judgment states the time of post mortem at about 4.45 PM
on 5.5.02 but in PW11’s deposition (Page 84 of additional
documents) the medical office stated that the postmortem
was conducted at about 11. 45 AM.
Place of Incident :D2, TSP I Battalion Quarters, Trichy.

Name of Accused :A1 Senthilkumar S/o Alagiriswamy

Name of Deceased :Balasundari (Wife of Senthilkumar)

Sole-Eyewitnesses :PW1- Sundaram(Brother of Deceased)

Weapons used :Knife (Aruval)

Details of FIR : 04.05.2002 at 11 30 pm (written complaint by PW1)

Offences under section : Section 498(A) and Section 302 r/w Section 32 of IPC
Police Station : KK Nagar Police Station.
Post Mortem : 05.05.2002 at 4.45 pm
PW11(Doctor) opines that death was due to hypoxia and
hemorrhage due to multiple wounds (Pg.89 of Additional
Documents-Deposition of doctor)

1
Trial Court Judgment : 07.10.2010
The learned Sessions Judge acquitted him of Section 498 A
of IPC and Section 4 of Dowry protection Act thereby
acquitting him of dowry charges but found him guilty u/s
302 of IPC thereby making him undergo imprisonment for
life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/
Reasoning:(Pg.30 to 42)
i) A1 assaulted the deceased with a knife and
which is Corroborated by medical evidence.
(Pg.7) and (Pg.89 of Additional
Documents-Deposition of doctor)
ii) Charges under Section 498 A framed against
the accused and 4 others (A2- A5), they
were discharged from their charges by the
trial court in Cr.M.P. 32/04 dated 27.02.04
and the same was confirmed by the Madras
High Court in Cr.M.P. 268/06 dated
14.11.06.
iii) Charges under Section 302 IPC framed
against the accused
iv) PW1(Sundaram) never spoke anything in
regard with dowry – PW3(Sumathi-Mother
of Deceased) alone stated the demand of
dowry. (Pg.18)
v) PW1 is the sole eye witness in the case.
(Pg.35)
vi) PW11 Medical officer who conducted the
post mortem stated in his evidence that the
death was caused due to a single weapon
like that of a knife (M.O.2) and states that
the reason for death was hypoxia and
hemorrhage due to multiple wounds (Pg. 39)
vii) Accused pleaded for reduction of sentence
period under section 235(2) of CRPC
claiming he is the only son on the house and
his parents are old thereby requesting the
court for minimal punishment. (Pg.42)
viii) Accused was already convicted for dowry
and harassment and was convicted and
sentenced to undergo R.I for 1 year and to
pay a fine of Rs 1000 and hence cannot be
convicted again for the same offence
(Double Jeopardy) thereby acquitting him of
charges under 498 A of IPC and Section 4 of
Dowry Protection Act.(Page 40)
ix) Motive proved-Non fulfillment of dowry
demand and non-withdrawal of previous
cases against the accused (SC.26/04) (Page
40)
x) Intention of murder established (Pg.41)
xi) Charges of murder proved beyond
reasonable doubt.

2
High Court: Appeal is filed by A1 under section 374 of Crpc to
set aside the judgment and conviction passed in
SC.No. 147 of 2003
High Court Judgment : 22.12.2011
The High Court found him guilty u/s 302 of IPC
thereby making him undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ (Upheld Trial Court
conviction)
Reasoning: (Pg.2-18)
i) PW 22 Collected cloth materials found on
the body and forwarded the same to the
court (Pg.1)
ii) PW 1 is the Sole eye witness of the case
iii) PW 5 – PW 7 have turned hostile- They
found the police breaking open the door of
the house of the accused by force. (Pg.1)
iv) Accused stated that PW1 and PW 3 were
giving ill advise to the deceased which
caused frequent misunderstanding between
the accused and the deceased (Pg.10)
v) PW 4’s deposition cannot be believed as he
is a police constable in the Tamil Nadu
Special Battalion Force, where the accused
was working with PW4 (Pg.9)
vi) Evidences of PW 6 and PW7 indicate that
the police broke open the door as it was
bolted from inside and hence it was
contended that if the sole eyewitness (P.W1)
who claimed to been present at the time of
occurrence of the murder there was no need
for the police to break open the door.
(Pg.12)
vii) The accused also stated in his statement
under 313 of the Crpc that he locked the
door of the house and hence there isn’t any
chance for PW1 to be present at the time of
Occurrence of the event. (Pg.12)
viii) Reliance of statements of the accused under
Section 313 of Crpc should either be
accepted in toto or rejected in toto and
rejected the statement which aimed at
answering the question as to who locked the
door of the house. (Pg.13)
ix) Evidence of PW 4 who spoke about the
house being locked was rejected by the court
in the light of evidences of PW-9 to PW-22.
(Pg.14)
x) PW-10 evidence talks about the arrest of the
accused on which the knife (MO-2) has been
seized and the blood group could not be
found but was the weapon was identified by
PW1. (Pg.14)

3
xi) Motive proved by evidences of PW1 and
PW 16-who was then commandant of the
special police battalion force) (Pg.14)
xii) Evidence of PW 10 and PW 22 suggests the
weapon was in a place of concealment
(Pg.14)
xiii) Evidence of PW 16 proved that the accused
surrendered before the KK Nagar police
station on 04.05.2002 i.e the date of
occurrence. Thereby dismissing the claim of
the prosecution that the accused was
absconding and arrested on a later date.
(Pg.14)
xiv) PW16 stated in the cross examination that
he heard the accused surrendered before the
KK Nagar police station is hit by hearsay
and hence was rejected. (Pg.15)
xv) On the conduct of the accused the court
noted that had the defense story being true
the accused would have raised a hue and cry
of outburst of emotion or at least sought for
the help of his neighbors. none of the
witnesses stated anything in this regard.
(Pg.16)
xvi) No explanation as to why the accused
locked the house when he went out to the
police station. (Pg.16)
xvii) As per the accused statement u/s 313 Crpc
the accused stated that he locked the house,
the court reasoned that assuming his
statement to be true, he ought to hand over
the key to the police to enable them to open
the house. (Pg.16)
xviii) Defense witnessess DW1-DW3 who were
examined during inquest by the police were
omitted to be examined during the
prosecution during trial, as they were
obliging witnesses who were fellow police
men of the accused. (Pg.17)
xix) Motive established, frequent quarrel
between the accused and deceased proved.
(Pg.17)
xx) Going by the motive, weapon used by the
accused, location of the injury i.e on the
vital parts of the deceased as the number of
injuries caused by the accused establishes a
definite intention to cause death. (Pg.17)
xxi) These acts fall within the first limb of the
section 300 of Crpc and offences committed
by the accused squarely falls under section
302 of the IPC, thereby upholding the
conviction of the Trial court. (Pg.18)
xxii) Appeal dismissed. (Pg.18)

4
 WITNESS ANLYSYS

PW NO. NAME OF RELATION TRIAL HIGHCOURT ADDITIONAL REMARKS

WITNESS WITH COURT PG.NO DOCUMENTS
INCIDENT PG.NO (Deposition of
witnesses)

1 Sundaram Brother of the 6-7, 3,12-13, 15 100 Sole eye-witness .

Deceased 12,18- Categorically states
21 the alleged act of the
Accused.
pg.no3
2 Mahadevan Father of the 12,17,2 110 Speaks about the
Deceased 0,28,29 incident, states that
he received phone
from PW 1-states
about the incident
pg no.28-29
3 Sumathy Mother of the 6- 114 Speaks about the
Deceased 7,17,20 incident and motive
,25 of the Accused.
pg.no 12
4 S.Chinnadurai Constable 12,19,3 11-12,14 65 Speaks about the
In TSP Batallion 5 incident. That he was
(During the
occurrence)
present when the
Police Broke lock &
went inside
occurrence house.
Pg.66
5 A.Daisy Wife of PW 4 31-32 9 67 Hostile witness. Pg
no 67-68
6 M.Siva 12 9,12 70 Witness
Subramaniam pg.no 70
7 K.Karuppusami Auto Driver 9,12 72 Hostile witness
pg.no 72
8 P.Vijaya Wife of Pw 7. 12-13 75 States that she saw
Working in the Accused and the
Tamilnadu special
Police Force. on
deceased along with
the period of their child before
occurrence time going to sleep.
She was aware of the
incident only on the
day of occurrence at
morning. pg.no 75-
76.
9 Naveen Neighbor of the 77 States that he was
Accused informed about the
occurrence by Pw1.
States that the Police
recovered the blood
stained earth in his
presence and he
signed the recovery

5
 mahzar. pg.no 78-78
10 Sivakumar Relative of the 13 80 Speaks about the
Accused and arrest,disclosure
Deceased
statement made by
the Accused and
recovery of the knife
from the possession
of the Accused.
pg.no 13
11 Karthikeyan Medical officer 83 Speaks about the
who conducted autopsy conducted
post mortem
by him. pg.no 83
12 Ugin Sagayaraj Photographer in 91 States that he took
Trichy the photos on the day
Metropolitan
Police Control
of occurrence and
room. also states that he
didn’t produce any
other documents
other than negatives
and photos. pg.no
91-92
13 M.Govindasamy Record keeper in 93 States that he
Labor court. received the
materials objects
which were seized in
connection to the
matter and they were
sent to the laboratory
for the chemical
examination and
obtained report also.
pg.no 93-94
14 Abdul Kareem Head Constable at 95 States that he
cantonment police received the First
station
Information Report
in connection to the
matter and the same
was handed over to
the Judicial
Magistrate. PW.17 .
pg.no. 95
15 K.Muthusamy Head Constable at 146 States that he was
Gandhi market appointed as a
Police station
officer in respect of
post-mortem of
Deceased. After
inquest report he
identified the dead
body to the doctor.
After post mortem
report he handed
over the dead body
to the parents pg.no
146-147
16 Senbagaraman Part of the Trichy 97 Speaks about the
Tamil Nadu

6
 Special Police compromise affected
Force 1st by him between the
Battalion during
the occurrence of
Deceased and the
the incident . Accused

Presently , DIG
Police in Salem
range.

17 Uma Maheswari Judicial 123 Speaks about the

Magistrate statement of the
Witness recorded
under section 164
Crpc
18 S. Thandapani Joint 127 Speaks about the
Commissioner in inquest held by him.
Directorate of the
Tribal welfare
office , Chennai

19 R.Loganathan Sub Inspector of 131 States that P.w.1

Police gave written
K.K.NAGAR
On the relevant
complaint and the
period of time same was registered
on the file of K.K
Nagar Police Station.
The F.I.R report was
sent to the offices
concern as well to
the P.W 17
20 S.Kabilan Inspector of 134 States about the
police Navalpattu previous case
On the relevant
period of time
registered by him
after recording
statements from wife
of the Accused on
12.01.2002 , also
states that the case
filed in the year 2002
was a false case and
therefore he did not
arrest the Accused in
that case.
21 V.C Selvamani Deputy 137 States that he
Commandant in conducted enquiry
Tamil Nadu
special police
regarding discipline
force action against the
On the relevant Accused. Also states
period of time that DW2 gave
statement that
Accused had
surrendered before
the K.K Nagar Police
Station on day of the
crime scene. pg.no
22 C. Ravichandran Inspector of 154 States that he
Police KK.Nagar received F.I.R report
On the relevant
period of time
sent by P.W 19 in
connection to the

7
 matter. Also states
that he went to
occurrence place and
inspected it, prepared
observation
Mahazar. Also
conducted enquiry
with P.W 1, P.W2,
P.W 2, P.W4, P.W 5,
P.W6, P,W7, P.W8,
P.W9, P.W10,
P.W14, P.W15,
P.W19. thereafter
the Accused was
arrested on
05.05.2002 near the
bus stand and gave
confession that he
will produce the
weapon which was
used by him for this
offence.
23 C.Rajamanickam Assistant 148 States that he
Commissioner of received the case
police On the
relevant period of
diary in connection
time to the matter from
P.W 22 also states
that he conducted
enquiry with medical
officers who
conducted the post-
mortem of the
Deceased.
DW .1 A. Johnson Grade - II Police 15 139 States that the
Constable On the Accused worked
relevant period of
time
under him and was
informed by
someone in the
Police station that
the
Accused and his
daughter are present
in the
police station on
04.05.2002 pg.no 15
DW.2 Pookkunju Chief Inspector of 33 142 States that he went to
police On the the police station
relavant period of
time
and saw the Accused
with his daughter.
pg.no 33
DW.3 M.senthilkumar Camp officer at 15 144 adduced evidence
commandant that he had seen the
office On the
relevant period of
commandant in the
time police station with
the inspector.
also states he saw the
Accused with his

8
daughter in the
police station