The Madras High Court Bench here has expressed concern over increasing number of murders for gain being reported from various parts of the State and observed that the reason for a spurt in such crimes was the growing tendency to live a cosy life by accumulating wealth irrespective of the means.
A Division Bench of Justices S. Nagamuthu and M. V. Muralidaran made the observation while dismissing a criminal appeal preferred by a tenant convicted and imposed with the punishment of life imprisonment by a Sessions Court in Karur in August 2013 for murdering his aged landlady in October 2011.
“Nowadays murder for gain is increasing and we cannot shut our eyes in such kind of cases. These days no one is prepared to do any work but wants to lead a happy life by committing crimes which cannot be allowed. Murder for gain is a danger to the society and the person involved in it should be punished severely,” it said.
The appeal had been preferred by Suresh alias Sathiyaraj, now confined in the Tiruchi Central Prison, challenging the life imprisonment imposed on him for the offence of murder as well as 10 years of rigorous imprisonment for house trespass and seven years of rigorous imprisonment for causing hurt at the time of robbery.
According to Mayanoor police in Karur district, the landlady, a widow, was residing along with her maternal grand daughter in her house and rented out a portion of it to the convict. The widow’s grand daughter was working in a textile mill and the incident had occurred when the young girl was not available at home.
The convict had killed the elderly woman and decamped with gold jewels, a mobile phone, four saris, a perfume bottle and Rs. 2,000 in cash. Though there was no eye witness to the crime, the prosecution had established his guilt through circumstantial evidence.
Assailing the trial court judgement, the appellant’s counsel contended that the police had failed to recover a gold chain, the cash as well as the mobile phone which were reportedly robbed from the house of the deceased and therefore, the Bench should set aside the conviction and life imprisonment by according the benefit of doubt.
Mr. Justice Muralidaran said: “Merely because the respondent police had not recovered certain articles, it does not mean that the accused has not committed the offence.”
