Case: Sathya Narayanan Vs. State Tr.Insp.Of Police

in the Ashram on 08.04.2000. It is also clear that though PW-7 has stated that he did not notice any injury on the body of the deceased, he admitted that the whole body was covered with a blue colour saree. He issued the Death Certificate mentioning that the deceased would have died due to heart attack without any examination, particularly, when the patient did not come to him at any point of time that too at the insistence of A-2, there is no need to give importance to the same. However, the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 prove the death of the deceased occurred on the morning of 08.04.2000 in the Ashram which is also one of the reliable circumstance which supports the case of the prosecution. It is also relevant to point out that the doctor, PW-7, admitted that when he visited the Ashram, he found a body lying beneath the sofa. It also creates a suspicion about the cause of her death. Sudha (PW-8) servant maid was told not to report for work in the afternoon: 29) Though Sudha (PW-8) turned hostile, in her deposition, it was stated that she was working in Sridevi Temple from January to March, 2000 and was distributing Saffron powder, turmeric and holy ashes to the devotees of the Temple. She further deposed that in April, 2000, when she went for work in the morning and was returning to her house for lunch at about 1.00 p.m., A-2 asked her not to come for work in the afternoon, therefore, on his instruction, she did not go for work in the afternoon. The fact that PW-8, who used to help the devotees all the time was asked not to attend in the afternoon in the month of April, 2000 is also one of the circumstance which supports the prosecution case. PWs 35 and 36 brother and sister of the deceased were not informed about the death of the deceased: 30) Though PWs 35 and 36, brother and sister of the deceased respectively, were residing in the same town were not informed about the death of Leelavathi by any person in the Ashram, particularly, A-1 and A-2. As a matter of fact, PWs 15 and 16 (vettiyan) who were attending the work of cremating the dead bodies, before commencement of their work, asked about the relatives of the deceased. A-2 informed them that the deceased is an orphan and had no relatives. As rightly observed by both the Courts, it would indicate that the appellants were not only responsible for committing murder but also screened the evidence. The statements of PWs 15 and 16, persons in charge of cremation of dead bodies, answers given by A-2 about their query relating to the relatives of the deceased and their reply that the deceased was an orphan are relevant circumstances which prove the case of the prosecution. Motive: 31) In the case of circumstantial evidence, motive also assumes significance for the reason that the absence of motive would put the court on its guard and cause it to scrutinize each piece of evidence closely in order to ensure that suspicion, omission or conjecture do not take the place of proof. In the case on hand, the prosecution has demonstrated that initially, the deceased entered the Ashram in order to assist the devotees and subsequently became one of the Trustees of the Trust and slowly developed grudge with the appellants. PWs 35 and 36, sister and brother of the deceased Leelavathi deposed that since then she became a Trustee, there was a dispute with regard to the Management of the said Trust. 32) From the above materials, we noted the following circumstances relied on by the prosecution, accepted by the trial Court and the High Court : (i) The deceased was a member of the Trust.(ii) On 08.04.2000, the date of incident, there was some kind of commotion in the Ashram.(iii) The death occurred in the Ashram.(iv) In the complaint to police (Exh. P-1), it was stated that there was distress cry of the deceased.(v) PW-4 heard a commotion in the Ashram.(vi) A-2 approached PW-6 (Doctor) stating that a lady was lying unconscious.(vii) PW-7 (another Doctor) was requested to attend a lady lying unconscious.(viii) The accused failed to take the deceased to the hospital rather they preferred to treat her in the Ashram itself with the help of known doctors (PWs 6 & 7).(ix) PW-7 visited the Ashram and found a body lying beneath the Sofa.(x) The dead body was covered with a Saree and, therefore, PW-7 could not have seen any external injury.(xi) The accused have chosen not to conduct post mortem hence, the real cause of the death was completely suppressed.(xii) PW-8 was told not to report for work in the afternoon.(xiii) The accused have failed to inform any of the relatives of the deceased (PWs 35 & 36) though they lived in the same town.(xiv) A-2 visited PW-15’s place for arranging for the cremation.(xv) PWs 15 & 16 asked about the availability of relatives and the accused answered in the negative.(xvi) PWs 15 to 18 identified A-3 as being present at the time of cremation.(xvii) The time of cremation of the deceased was late in the evening, though the death occurred in the forenoon itself.(xviii)The accused had voluntarily lied to the persons who were cremating the body (vettiyan) that the deceased was an orphan and has no relatives.Conclusion: 33) The above analysis clearly shows that though there is no direct evidence about the cause of death, various circumstances projected by the prosecution complete the chain of link and established that, in all probability, the act must have been done by the appellants. All the circumstances have been clearly discussed by the trial Court and it rightly convicted and awarded appropriate sentence. The High Court, as an appellate Court, once again marshaled all the materials leading to the death of the deceased Leelavathi and confirmed the same. We fully concur with the said conclusion 34..

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]31) In the case of circumstantial evidence, motive also assumes significance for the reason that the absence of motive would put the court on its guard and cause it to scrutinize each piece of evidence closely in order to ensure that suspicion, omission or conjecture do not take the place of proof. In the case on hand, the prosecution has demonstrated that initially, the deceased entered the Ashram in order to assist the devotees and subsequently became one of the Trustees of the Trust and slowly developed grudge with the appellants. PWs 35 and 36, sister and brother of the deceased Leelavathi deposed that since then she became a Trustee, there was a dispute with regard to the Management of the saidthere is no direct evidence about the cause of death, various circumstances projected by the prosecution complete the chain of link and established that, in all probability, the act must have been done by the appellants. All the circumstances have been clearly discussed by the trial Court and it rightly convicted and awarded appropriate sentence. The High Court, as an appellate Court, once again marshaled all the materials leading to the death of the deceased Leelavathi and confirmed the same. We fully concur with the said