Back
2008(1) Crimes 21 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Madras High Court)
S.B. Sinha & Harjit Singh Bedi, JJ.
Murugan & Ors. — Petitioners
versus
State through Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1276 of 2005
Decided on : 04-12-2007
important point
When the State allowed the inadequate conviction and sentence to attain finality by not preferring appeal thereagainst, the same cannot be altered.
Headnote:(a)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 300, Proviso thirdly – Intention on the part of a person to commit murder must be gathered from the backdrop of events and the circumstances attending thereto and if proved, the rest of the enquiry would be purely objective and the only question to be considered would be whether the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (Para 11)
AIR 1958 SC 465; 2007 (7) SCALE 56 – Relied upon.
(b)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 324 – Evidence to show that appellants had a motive, they came in a group, all of them were armed – Appellants with a view to take revenge, caused murder of the deceased and injuries on some of the prosecution witnesses – The prosecution witnesses were injured witnesses – No interference warranted. (Paras 9 and 14)
AIR 1958 SC 465; 2007 (7) SCALE 56 – Relied upon.
(c)Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 324 and 302/34 – Although the appellants should have been convicted u/s 302/34, for commission of an offence under Section 302/34 the appellants, other than the first appellant, have been only convicted under Section 324 – As the State did not prefer any appeal thereagainst, the judgment of conviction and sentence cannot be altered. (Para 14)
Facts of the case :
1.A quarrel ensued between the prosecution party and the accused on 10.7.1973 in regard to drawing of water from a well. Accused were said to have been bearing grudge towards the deceased as a criminal case was instituted against them. On 4.8.1993, at about 6.15 pm, a procession of villagers was taken out for celebrating a festival known as “Mulaipari” festival. When the procession reached near the village known as Gandaru, with a view to commit murder of PW-5, Nagarajan and other persons, the accused persons attacked the deceased.
2.Out of 11 accused, however, only accused No.7 and 8 to 10, were convicted and sentenced whereas others were acquitted. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellants herein has been dismissed.
Findings of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the findings of the courts below.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1.This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 14.10.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 1997 whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellants herein against a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 10.2.1997 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathpuram convicting the accused No.7 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and accused Nos. 8, 9 and 10 under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment was dismissed.
2.A quarrel ensued between the prosecution party and the accused on 10.7.1973 in regard to drawing of water from a well. Accused were said to have been bearing grudge towards the deceased as a criminal case was instituted against them at Kumuthi Police Station. On 4.8.1993, at about 6.15 pm, a procession of villagers was taken out for celebrating a festival known as “Mulaipari” festival. It started at village Keelamathupatti. When the procession reached near the village known as Gandaru, with a view to commit murder of PW-5, Nagarajan and other persons, the accused persons who were 11 in number allegedly formed an unlawful assembly with weapons like knife, cycle chains and sticks in their hands. Accused No.1, Subramanian, and accused No.3, Selvaraj, are said to have instigated others to commit murder of PW-5 Nagarajan consequent whereupon accused No.4, Ramu, attacked him with a stick causing a fracture on his right hand. When deceased Kannan tried to obstruct him from doing so, accused No.4, Ramu, instructed accused No.2, Selvaraj, to kill him also. Consequently, accused No.2, Selvaraj, caught hold of the hands of Kannan, whereas accused No.6 caught hold of his shoulders. Taking advantage of the said situation, the appellant No.1 herein (accused No.7 - Murugan) is said to have stabbed him with a knife on his chest. Appellant No.1 is said to have caused an injury on PW-1, Chithiraichamy, also with his knife, whereas accused No.8 attacked PW-1 with cycle chain and caused an injury on his head thereby. Appellant No.3- Selvaraj, (accused No.9) is said to have attacked PW-3, Kathirvel, with a knife on his nose and head whereas accused No.10, Boomi, attacked PW-3 with a cycle chain and caused injuries to him. PW-2, Murugesan was also attacked with a stick.
3.A First Information Report was lodged immediately after the said occurrence. Out of 11 accused, however, only accused No.7 and 8 to 10, were convicted and sentenced in the manner, as noticed hereinbefore, whereas others were acquitted. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the appellants herein has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.
4.Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel, in support of the appeal, would, inter alia, submit :
(1)Appellant No.1 having inflicted only one blow with a knife on the deceased, the offence, if any, committed by him falls under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 thereof.
(2)Appellant No.2 (accused No.8), having examined defence witnesses to prove his plea of alibi, the learned Sessions Judge, as also the High Court, committed a serious error in recording a judgment of conviction against him. In this connection our attention has been drawn to the following purported findings of the learned Sessions Judge :
“The 8th accused has not committed the offence punishable under Section 324 IPC”.
(3)All the other accused having caused only simple injuries, sentence of one year’s rigorous imprisonment is on the higher side.
5.Mr. V. Kanakaraj, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.
6.The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twenty one witnesses.
The nature of evidence of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence whereupon strong reliance has been placed by both the
