Supreme Court Judgment on the brutal murder case of a film actress of the South and her mother.

State Of Tamil Nadu vs Kutty (Lakshmi Narasimhan)
Appellants: State of Tamil Nadu
Respondents: Lakshmi Narasimhan
Date: 10/08/2001
Bench: K.T. Thomas and S.N. Variva
 
Facts: In this instant case Rani Padmini, a dainty film actress of the South and her mother Indira Kumari were butchered on an ill-fated morning fifteen years ago, in their own flat at Anna Nagar in Madras (now Chennai). Their driver, watchman and cook were later caught and charge-sheeted by the police for the said double murder. The trial court convicted all the three persons and sentenced them to death. But a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras acquitted two of them (the watchman and the cook) while altering the sentence of the driver to imprisonment for life after confirming the conviction. That person (A-1 Jebaraj) moved this Court for special leave to appeal but that special leave petition was dismissed.
Contentions: Shri K. Vishwanathan, learned counsel for Lakshmi Narasimhan pleaded for maintaining the order of acquittal. He cautioned the Supreme Court by citing judicial precedents that the approach of a court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal was always different from an appeal against conviction. Learned counsel took pains to convince us that apart from the inherent weakness of extra judicial confessions by the very nature of that evidence. In the present case, Shri K. Vishwanathan pointed out that A-2 Lakshmi Narasimhan was in police custody for a long time i.e. from 3.11.1986 to 17.11.1986. Learned counsel contended on its premise that A-2 would have been pressurised, if not tortured, by the police to make the confession before the magistrate. This contention is made by overlooking certain broad facts. Shri S. Balakrishnan, Senior Advocate who argued for the State contended that the High Court approached prosecution evidence in a very pedantic manner and laboured to find out the drawbacks in investigation and wrongly sidestepped the confessions made by the accused persons. The reasoning advanced by the Division Bench, according to the learned senior counsel, are totally unsustainable if not flippant. He contended that acquittal of the appellant resulted in a grave miscarriage of justice.
 Conclusion: The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court has gone seriously wrong in interfering with the conviction passed by the trial court regarding A-2 and is of the definite opinion that the High Court should not have sidelined Ext.P-66 judicial confession. In the result, the apex court allow this appeal and set aside the order of acquittal passed by the High Court and restore the order of conviction passed by the trial court. However, we think that the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life is sufficient to be imposed on A-2 for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Hence the court sentences him so.
Decision: Hence the appeal is allowed and the order is set aside.
SUBMITTED BY:- SHUBHANGI GUPTA.