http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: MOORTHY

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF TAMIL NADU

DATE OF JUDGMENT09/05/1988

BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) BENCH: SHARMA, L.M. (J) SEN, A.P. (J)

CITATION:  1988 AIR 1245            1988 SCR  Supl. (1) 222  1988 SCC  (3) 207        JT 1988 (2)   437  1988 SCALE  (1)886

ACT:      Indian  Penal   Code,   1860:   Section   302-Appellant convicted of  murder of lady and son-Death sentence by trial court-Confirmed by  High Court-Courts below-Whether right in imposing death  penalty-Mitigating circumstances-Unfortunate relationship  between   deceased,  an   elderly   lady   and appellant, in  mid 20s-Sudden  spurning by partner-Appellant experiencing  disappointment   of  discarded   lover-Vicious effect of  film  picturising  violence  seen  by  appellant- Supreme   Court    converting   death   sentence   to   life imprisonment.

HEADNOTE:      The  prosecution  case  was:  The  appellant,  who  was working under  P.W.1, developed  intimacy with P.W.1’s wife. However, on being found out by her daughter, P.W.2, the wife was forced to terminate this relationship.      Then, on 20.7.1985, the appellant saw a late night film containing murder  scenes of four women and told his friend, P.W.5, that  he would  take revenge  for the  betrayal by  a lady. Thereafter  he went to the house of P.W.1 and attacked the wife  with knife, and killed her son when he intervened. He also caused grievous injury to the daughter.      The appellant was convicted by the trial court under s. 302 IPC  for double murder of the woman and her son and also under s. 307 IPC for attempting to kill her daughter and for house trespass  in order  to commit  the aforesaid offences, and sentenced to death and life imprisonment respectively.      The High  Court dismissed the appeal, and confirmed the death sentence.      In the  appeal by  special leave, it was contended that although the  appellant was not in such a mental state as to attract s.  84 of  the IPC,  he was certainly so agitated on account of  the circumstances  beyond his  control  that  he should be spared from the extreme penalty of death.      Allowing the appeal, 223 ^      HELD:  The  deceased  was  an  elderly  lady  with  two children who  took a defiant attitude, defending her conduct when she  was first  confronted by  her own  daughter, which

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

suggests that  the unfortunate  relationship between her and the appellant,  in his  mid  20s,  had  developed  with  her encouragement. When  suddenly spurned  by his  partner,  the appellant must  have experienced  the  disappointment  of  a discarded lover. His mental agitation was further fuelled by the movie, showing murder after murder. And when this upsets a youngman, already vulnerably disturbed, the society cannot be completely absolved of sharing the responsibility for the tragedy  resulting   from  the   vicious  effect   of  films picturising violence. [225F-H; 226A-B]      Considering all  these circumstances, and having regard to the  fact that  when commanded  by P.W.16,  the appellant stopped immediately,  thereby resulting  in the  life of the daughter being saved, and that he did not attempt to escape, the sentence  of death passed against the appellant under s. 302 Indian Penal Code is converted to imprisonment for life. [226B-C]

JUDGMENT:      CRIMINAL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION: Criminal  Appeal  No. 317 of 1988.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  23.1.1987  of  the Madras High  Court in  Criminal Appeal  No. 408  of 1986 and R.T. 6 of 1986.      U.R. Lalit,  V. Krishnamurthy  and V.  Balachandran for the Appellant.      A.V. Rangam for the Respondent.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      SHARMA, J.  The appellant  was convicted  by the  trial court for  double murder  of a woman, Jayasambal by name and her son  Vijay Anand,  and was  sentenced to  death. He  was further convicted  under s.  307, I.P.C.  for attempting  to kill Vijay Anand’s sister Kavitha Priyadarsini and for house trespass in  order to commit the aforesaid offences, and was sentenced to life imprisonment under each of the two counts. His appeal  before the  Madras High  Court was dismissed and the sentence  of death  confirmed. The present Special Leave Petition was filed against this judgment.      2. At  the preliminary  hearing we  were satisfied that the appel- 224      lant was  rightly convicted  as mentioned  earlier. We, however, directed  notice to  be issued  on the  question of sentence. Accordingly, limited special leave is granted.      3. According  to  the  case  of  the  prosecution,  Dr. Manickasamy (P.W.1),  the husband of the deceased Jayasambal and father  of deceased Vijay Anand, was a doctor working in the Government  Hospital at  Sadras and  the appellant  as a Leprosy Inspector  under him.  The doctor had taken a second wife whom  he was  keeping in  another house  with  their  3 children. The appellant developed close association with the doctor’s family  and became  intimate with  Jayasambal.  The daughter Kavitha  Priyadarsini (P.W.2),  one  day  in  1984, found to  her shock, her mother Jayasambal and the appellant in a  compromising position, and raised a stiff protest with her mother.  Jayasambal attempted  to justify her romance on the ground  that the  doctor P.W.1 was also having two women in his  life. When  Kavitha threatened that she would report the matter  to her  father, she  (Jayasambal)  relented  and agreed  to  terminate  the  illicit  relationship  on  which Kavitha promised  silence.  Thus  forced  by  her  daughter, Jayasambal attempted  to avoid  the company of the appellant and to  repel his  advances. In  the meantime the family had

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

changed its  residence and  the younger sister of Jayasambal joined them  and started  living with them. She was examined in the case as P.W.3.      4. On  20.7.1985 the  appellant went  to a  late  night cinema show with his friend P.W.5. The film contained murder scenes of  four women.  When the  appellant came  out of the cinema hall  after midnight he told his friend that he would take revenge for the betrayal by a lady. He did not give any detail. P.W.5 stated at the trial that after dropping him at the dispensary,  where he  lived, the  appellant left  by  a bicycle; and  he learnt  the next morning about the death of Jayasambal.      5. According  to  the  further  prosecution  story  the appellant knocked  the door  of P.W.1  soon thereafter.  The doctor came  out of  his house  and the  appellant  suddenly rushed into  his bed  room, locked  the door from inside and attacked Jayasambal  with a  knife. The boy Vijay Anand aged about 12  years, got  up and  attempted to intervene and was killed. His  elder sister  Kavitha  (P.W.2)  also  became  a victim and  suffered grievous injury. The doctor, P.W.1, and Jayasambal’s younger  sister  (P.W.3)  raised  shouts  which attracted  P.W.16,   a  Police   Inspector  living   in  the neighbourhood. The  Police Inspector saw the accused through the window  with a knife in his hand and ordered him to stop and to open the door. The appellant obeyed. 225      6. Both  the trial court and the High Court, on appeal, closely examined  the evidence  and came  to the  conclusion that the  prosecution story  was correct. A plea of insanity under s.  84, I.P.C.  taken on  behalf of  the  accused  was rejected.  We   have   examined   the   evidence   and   the circumstances and are in agreement with the view of the High Court.      7. However,  the question  is whether  the courts below were right  in imposing  death penalty  on the  appellant or whether the  appropriate sentence  would be imprisonment for life. Prima  facie the case appears to be a very serious one where two  persons were  killed and  a third  one  seriously injured. The  death of  a 12  year boy  trying to  save  his mother and the serious injury to his elder sister leaves one shocked. Mr.  Lalit, the  learned counsel  for the appellant contended that  although the  appellant was  not in  such  a mental state  so  as  to  attract  s.  84,  I.P.C.,  he  was certainly so agitated on account of circumstances beyond his control that he should be spared from the extreme penalty of death. He  relied upon the decision in Srirangan v. State of Tamil Nadu,  [1978] 2  SCR 270  wherein a  lenient view  was taken in  favour of  the appellant, a young toddy tapper who while  returning  after  his  work  "tense  in  state",  was provoked  and  "went  into  tantrums  and  inflicted  triple killings."      8. We  have closely examined the circumstances in which the tragic  event took place. The deceased Jayasambal at the time of  murder was  about 35  years old  with  a  teen-aged daughter and a 12 year old son, and the appellant was in his late 20s.  She was  united  with  the  doctor  through  love marriage, but  the husband later took another wife and got 3 children  from  her.  The  appellant  was  employed  in  the hospital  where   the  doctor  P.W.1  was  posted.  In  this background the  unfortunate illicit  relationship  developed between the  deceased and  the appellant when the latter was in his  mid 20s.  The deceased  was an elderly lady with two children who  took a defiant attitude, defending her conduct when she  was first  confronted by  her own  daughter, which suggests that  the unfortunate  relationship  had  developed

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

with  her   encouragement.  When  suddenly  spurned  by  his partner,   the   appellant   must   have   experienced   the disappointment of  a discarded lover. We do not suggest that the erring  wife should  not have  corrected herself nor can the  persistence  of  the  appellant  in  the  situation  be appreciated, but  we are  trying to  analyse his psychology. His mental  agitation was  further  fuelled  by  the  movie, showing murder  after murder.  The vicious  effect of  films picturising violence  in detail  on impressionable minds has been subject  of serious  concern for  some  time  now,  but unfortunately no 226      effective step  has been  taken  so  far  to  curb  the growing tendency  of a  section of the film industry to cash on human  weakness. And when this upsets a youngman, already vulnerably  disturbed,  the  society  cannot  be  completely absolved from  sharing the  responsibility of  the resulting tragedy. Proceeding  further with  the facts  in the present case, we  find that when commanded by P.W. 16, the appellant stopped immediately,  as a  result  of  which  the  life  of Kavitha was saved, opened the door, came out of the room and did not attempt to escape.      9. Considering  the above  circumstances appearing from the prosecution  evidence, we  are  of  the  view  that  the sentence of death passed against the appellant under s. 302, Indian Penal  Code, should  be converted to imprisonment for life. Let  that  be  done  and  let  all  the  sentences  of imprisonment run concurrently. N.P.V.                                       Appeal allowed. 227