- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Mariadasan And Others v. State Of Tamil Nadu .
Factual and Procedural Background
On 27 December 1970, an altercation arising out of an earlier dispute occurred between Prosecution Witness 1 (PW 1), the deceased Francis, and five accused persons: Varuvel (A1), Mariadasan (A2), Ambrose (A3), Prakasan (A4) and Maria Sebasthiyan (A5). Earlier that afternoon PW 1 had been surrounded by the accused, but no violence ensued. At approximately 6 p.m. a second, sudden confrontation erupted. During this clash:
- A2 stabbed Francis several times, inflicting a fatal chest wound.
- A1 inflicted knife injuries on PW 1.
- A3 struck PW 1 with a stick on the back and shoulder.
- A4 was alleged to have hit PW 1 on the knee, though no medical evidence corroborated this injury.
- No overt act was attributed to A5.
The trial court acquitted all five accused of every charge, including murder (Section 302), rioting and unlawful assembly (Sections 147–149) and other allied offences. On the State’s appeal, the High Court of Madras reversed the acquittals, convicting:
- A2 of murder (Section 302) and allied offences, sentencing him to life imprisonment with concurrent terms for lesser offences.
- A1 of causing hurt with a knife (Section 324) and rioting (Section 148).
- A3 and A4 of offences under Sections 324/149, and A5 under Sections 147 and 324/149.
A2 appealed to the Supreme Court under Section 2 of the Enlargement of Supreme Court (Appellate) Jurisdiction Act, 1970. A1, A3, A4 and A5 sought special leave, which the Supreme Court granted, tagging their petitions with A2’s statutory appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the evidence established the existence of an unlawful assembly so as to sustain convictions under Sections 147, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
- Whether A2’s act constituted murder punishable under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide under Section 304, Part I or Part II.
- Whether the convictions of A4 and A5 were sustainable in the absence of specific, corroborated evidence of their participation.
- Whether the sentences imposed on A1 and A3 required modification.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Arguments
- Counsel conceded that, on the evidence, he could not press for A1’s complete acquittal but challenged the multiplicity of rioting-related convictions.
- For A2, it was urged that the case fell under Section 304 (culpable homicide) rather than Section 302, given the alleged absence of an intention to cause death.
- For A4 and A5, counsel contended that no legal evidence connected them to either the fatal assault on Francis or the injuries to PW 1.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook an independent appraisal of the testimony of PW 1, the First Information Report and medical evidence:
- Unlawful Assembly: The Court found “no satisfactory evidence” of a pre-planned common object. The confrontation was spontaneous and “started suddenly on the spur of the moment,” negating liability under Sections 147–149 IPC. Those convictions were therefore unsustainable.
- A2 (Murder Charge): The post-mortem by PW 9 established that A2’s chest blow severed part of the thoracic aorta, fractured ribs and was “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.” Given the targeted, vital area and severity of the wound, the Court ruled the act met the ingredients of Section 302; a downgrading to Section 304 was “unable to be agreed with.”
- A1 (Knife Assault): Defence counsel accepted liability under Section 324 IPC. With the unlawful-assembly findings set aside, the Court confined A1’s conviction to Section 324 and affirmed the three-year rigorous imprisonment (RI) term.
- A3 (Stick Assault): Medical evidence confirmed only simple abrasions. The Court altered the conviction from Section 324/149 to Section 323 IPC, reducing the sentence to time already served and imposing a ₹500 fine payable to PW 1, with one month’s RI in default.
- A4 and A5: The Court noted the absence of any medical corroboration for the alleged knee injury by A4 and complete lack of overt acts by A5, coupled with PW 1’s failure to mention A4 in the FIR. Both were acquitted of all charges.
Holding and Implications
DISPOSED OF IN PART
- A2’s conviction under Section 302 IPC and life sentence affirmed.
- A1’s conviction and three-year RI under Section 324 IPC affirmed.
- A3’s conviction altered to Section 323 IPC; custodial sentence reduced to period already served plus ₹500 fine (one month RI in default).
- A4 and A5 acquitted of every charge.
- All convictions under Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC set aside for all accused.
The decision relieves A4 and A5 entirely and limits liability for A1 and A3 to individual acts of hurt, while upholding A2’s murder conviction. No new legal precedent was formulated; the ruling primarily clarifies evidentiary thresholds for establishing an unlawful assembly under the IPC.
1. This is an appeal under Section 2 of the Enlargement of Supreme Court (Appellate) Jurisdiction Act, by the Appellant Mariadasan who was Accused 2 in the trial court. The other four accused persons, namely Al(Varuvel), A3(Ambrose), A4(Prakasan) and A5 (Maria Sebasthiyan) have filed a petition for special leave against the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court. The trial court acquitted the accused of all the charges, namely Sections 302/149, 307/149, 148, 147, etc. The State filed an appeal before the High Court which reversed the judgment of the trial court and convicted Mariadasan, Accused 2, under Section 302 to imprisonment for life, under Sections 324/149 to 3 years' RI, under Section 148, also to three years' RI (sentences to run concurrently).
2. So far as the other accused were concerned the High Court convicted Accused 1 under Section 324 to three years' RI and to the same sentence under Section 148; Accused 3, under Sections 324/149 to three years' RI. Accused 4 was also convicted similarly. A5 was convicted under Section 147 to two years' RI and under Sections 324/149 to 3 years. The special leave petition filed by Accused 1, 3, 4, and 5 were ordered to be heard along with this appeal and we hereby grant special leave so that the applications of Al, A3, A4 and A5 may be disposed of also by this judgment.
3. We have heard the Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the judgment of the trial court and the High Court. Mr B.P Singh with his usual fairness, brevity and ingenuity has frankly conceded that in the state of evidence it is not possible for him to press the case of Accused 1 and so far as Accused 2 was concerned he argued that conviction under Section 302 was wrong as his case squarely falls under Section 304, Part I or Part II of IPC.
4. As regards Accused 4 and 5, the learned Counsel submitted that there was no legal evidence against them. The occurrence took place on December 27, 1970 and was a result of an earlier dispute between the parties in which certain threats are said to have been given. A report was made regarding the threats before the police station and some time in the afternoon, while PW 1 was returning from the church he was surrounded by the five accused but nothing of much consequence happened at that time. In the evening, at 6 p.m on the date of occurrence, it appears that there was a sudden altercation between PW 1 and the accused in which the deceased Francis tried to intervene as a result of which A2 assaulted him with knife on several parts of the body and caused a serious injury on the chest. According to the evidence, Al is said to have assaulted PW 1 with knife and inflicted knife injuries to him. According to the evidence of PW 1, A3 had beaten him on the shoulder with a stick and A4 had given a beating to PW 1 on the left knee. No overt act was ascribed to A5. Reading the evidence of PW 1 as also the allegations made in the FIR we are satisfied that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove the formation of any unlawful assembly at any time with the common object of assaulting or killing either the deceased Francis or PW 1. The whole fight started suddenly on the spur of the moment in a heat of passion and, therefore, the accused could only be liable for the individual acts committed by them. For these reasons, therefore, we agree with Mr Singh that there is no evidence to support the conviction of rioting under Sections 149, 148 or 147 of the IPC as recorded by the High Court.
5. Coming to the individual acts, so far as A2 is concerned the medical evidence of PW 9 shows that one of the injuries caused by A2 was on the chest which cut a part of the thoracic aorta which was main portion of the heart and also, fractured 8th and 9th rib on the right side of the chest. According to the doctor this injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Having regard, therefore, to the nature of the injury and the vital and delicate part of the body at which it was aimed, we are unable to agree with Mr Singh that the act of A2 could in any way fall under Section 304, Part I or Part II. The High Court was, therefore, absolutely correct in holding that A2 was guilty of committing murder of the deceased Francis particularly in view of the brutal injury caused on the chest of the deceased.
6. As regards Al, Mr Singh conceded that if the charge of unlawful assembly failed he would be only liable for having caused simple hurt by sharp cutting instrument, namely knife and would have to be convicted under Section 324. In fact his conviction under Section 324 by the High Court and sentence of 3 years' RI has not be in challenged by the learned Counsel for the appellant and we uphold the same.
7. As regards A3, there is clear evidence of PW 1 which is supported by other witnesses also that A3 had beaten him on the back and shoulder with stick. The doctor also found the injuries on the back and shoulder of PW 1 only in the nature of abrasions and were, therefore, simple.
8. We, therefore, uphold the conviction of A3 under Section 323 but reduce the sentence to the period already served and in lieu of the sentence remitted we impose a fine of Rs 500 and in default one month's rigorous imprisonment. The entire fine, if realised, shall be paid to PW 1 as compensation.
9. As regards A4 and A5, there is really no evidence to connect them with the assault either on the deceased or on the injured witness PW 1. No overt act has been ascribed to A5. So far as A4 is concerned it is alleged by PW 1 that he had beaten him with a stick on the left knee but the doctor does not find any such injury. In the FIR also PW 1 did not at all mention that he was assaulted by A4 on the knee. For these reasons, therefore, we agree with Mr Singh that Accused 4 and 5 cannot be convicted. In view of our finding that there is no evidence to substantiate the charge regarding the existence of an unlawful assembly of the accused persons, we acquit all of them of the charges under Sections 149, 148 and 147. A4 and A5 are also acquitted of all the charges. Conviction and sentence of A2 under Sections 302 of the IPC, are affirmed and those of A1 under Section 324 of the IPC are also confirmed. Appeals arising out of special leave petitions are accordingly allowed in part and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Alert