Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

In Re: Rama Goundan

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Mar 19, 1941
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/814851

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Rama Goundan

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1942Mad275a

Excerpt

- mockett, j.1. the appellant has been convicted of the murder of his cousin and has been sentenced to death by the learned additional sessions judge of coimbatore. there is no question that on 24th september last parama goundan was murdered. his body was exhumed on 2nd october from the garden of the accused (after discussing the evidence, his lordship proceeded.) in these circumstances we think that the learned sessions judge quite rightly drew the inference from these facts that the accused deliberately murdered his cousin and quite rightly rejected the story told at a somewhat late stage and only when the body was revealed that it was done in a manner which might have reduced this offence to some lesser offence.2. the whole of the circumstances in this case point to the fact that for some reasons which may not ever be ascertained this was a deliberate murder and a deliberate attempt at concealment. we therefore confirm the conviction and dismiss the appeal. similarly, in a case of this sort the sentence passed was the appropriate sentence and that also is confirmed.3. we notice that the learned judge whilst convicting of murder has also convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment for concealing the evidence. whilst as a strict question of law this may not be wrong; it is in our view highly unusual and undesirable. this is a case where the whole question was whether this man was guilty of murder. it was not suggested, the murder was committed by anybody else and we think that the procedure in the lower court should not be treated as a precedent in that court.

Full Judgment

Mockett, J.

1. The appellant has been convicted of the murder of his cousin and has been sentenced to death by the learned Additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore. There is no question that on 24th September last Parama Goundan was murdered. His body was exhumed on 2nd October from the garden of the accused (After discussing the evidence, his Lordship proceeded.) In these circumstances we think that the learned Sessions Judge quite rightly drew the inference from these facts that the accused deliberately murdered his cousin and quite rightly rejected the story told at a somewhat late stage and only when the body was revealed that it was done in a manner which might have reduced this offence to some lesser offence.

2. The whole of the circumstances in this case point to the fact that for some reasons which may not ever be ascertained this was a deliberate murder and a deliberate attempt at concealment. We therefore confirm the conviction and dismiss the appeal. Similarly, in a case of this sort the sentence passed was the appropriate sentence and that also is confirmed.

3. We notice that the learned Judge whilst convicting of murder has also convicted the appellant and sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment for concealing the evidence. Whilst as a strict question of law this may not be wrong; it is in our view highly unusual and undesirable. This is a case where the whole question was whether this man was guilty of murder. It was not suggested, the murder was committed by anybody else and we think that the procedure in the lower Court should not be treated as a precedent in that Court.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial