N Criminal Appeal No 317 of 1988
From the Judgment and Order dated 2311987 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No 408 of 1986 and RT 6 of 1986
UR Lalit V Krishnamurthy and V Balachandran for the Appellant
AV 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 section 307 IPC 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
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
According to the case of the prosecution Dr Manickasamy PW1 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 PW2 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 PW1 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 changed its residence and the younger sister of Jayasambal joined them and started living with them
She was examined in the case as PW3
On 2071985 the appellant went to a late night cinema show with his friend PW5
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
PW5 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
According to the further prosecution story the appellant knocked the door of PW1 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 PW2 also became a victim and suffered grievous injury
The doctor PW1 and Jayasambal s younger sister PW3 raised shouts which attracted PW16 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 section 84 IPC 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
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 section 84 IPC 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 vs State of Tamil Nadu 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
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 PW1 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 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 PW 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
Considering the above circumstances appearing from the prosecution evidence we are of the view that the sentence of death passed against the appellant under section 302 Indian Penal Code should be converted to imprisonment for life
Let that be done and let all the sentences of imprisonment run concurrently
NPV Appeal allowed


Summary:
The first respondent was a tenant of two adjacent shops under a single lease obtained from two co owners
The co owners transferred their respective shares separately
Pursuant to partition between the transferees the appellant became the exclusive owner of one of the shops
The appellant instituted proceedings and obtained an order for the eviction of the first respondent from his shop on the ground of own bonafide need
The District Judge upheld that order
The High Court however in a writ petition accepted the contention of the first respondent that in claiming possession of a part of the subject matter of the original lease the appellant as seeking to split the integrity and unity of the tenancy which was impermissible in law
The High Court accordingly set aside the concurrent orders of the courts below
Allowing the appeal it was  HELD 1 A landlord could not split the unity and integrity of the tenancy and recover possession of a part of the demised premises from the tenant
But section 109 of the provided a statutory exception of this rule
By virtue of this exception the limitation on the right of the landlord against splitting up of the integrity of the tenancy inhering in the inhibitions of his own contract did not visit the assignee of the part of the reversion
There was no need for the consent of the tenant for the severance of the reversion and the 256 assignment of the part so severed
258C E 2 Though there was difference of opinion among the various High Courts on the point the learned Judge in this case should have considered himself bound by an earlier decision of the same High Court in Ram Chandra Singh case which had taken the view that section 109 of the TP Act was attracted to the case of partition also
259G H 3 Without pronouncing on the correctness of the decision in Ram Chandra Singh s case this Court applied the same rule and reversed the High Court on the point and restored the order of eviction
260B Kannyan vs Alikutty AIR 1920 Mad 838 FB Badri Narain Jha and Ors
vs Rameshwar Dayal  Ors  and Ram Chandra Singh vs Ram Saran  Ors AIR 1978 All 173 referred to