Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Seriyal Udayar v. State Of Tamil Nadu .

Supreme Court Of India

Mar 25, 1987

Judgment

CaseIQ

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant (Accused 1) and his son (Accused 2) were tried before the Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1976 for offences under Sections 447, 324 and 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that a boundary-ridge dispute on 2 December 1975 led Accused 1 to fatally assault his brother-in-law, Arokiyaswami, with a spade handle while Accused 2 caused a minor injury to PW 1. The deceased was taken to hospital, examined by PW 5 (Civil Assistant Surgeon) and died the same day, whereupon the case was altered from Section 307 to Section 302 IPC.

The Sessions Judge acquitted both accused on 28 April 1976, giving weight to injuries found on the accused and holding that the prosecution had failed to disprove the defence version of a sudden fight and right of private defence. On a State appeal, the Madras High Court re-assessed the evidence, reversed the acquittal and convicted: Accused 1 was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 and three months under Section 447; Accused 2 received one year under Section 324 and three months under Section 447, the sentences running concurrently. Accused 1 alone appealed to the Supreme Court from jail; Accused 2 had already served his sentence and did not appeal.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal and convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the prosecution proved the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt in light of inconsistencies and suppression of injuries on the accused.
Whether the appellant was entitled to the right of private defence, or at least the benefit of doubt arising from that plea.

Arguments of the Parties

Prosecution's Arguments

The deceased and prosecution witnesses (PWs 1 and 2) were ploughing when the accused arrived armed with spades, confronted the deceased about damaging the ridge and assaulted him, causing fatal head injuries.
PWs 1–4 witnessed the attack, and medical evidence corroborated the injuries on the deceased and PW 1.
The trial court erred in doubting these eyewitnesses and in giving undue weight to the defence version.

Defence's Arguments

The deceased and PW 1 initiated the dispute by attempting to dig a new channel; they were armed (the deceased with an “aruval”).
The appellant sustained injuries while snatching a spade from PW 1 and warding off blows from the deceased; these injuries were proved through DW 1 (Dr. Domnic Swaminathan).
The assault, if any, occurred in the exercise of the appellant’s right of private defence, arising out of grave and sudden provocation, or at the very least created reasonable doubt that should favour the accused.
The prosecution suppressed and failed to explain injuries on the accused, undermining its credibility.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court scrutinised the evidentiary basis on which the High Court reversed the acquittal:

Credibility of Eyewitnesses: PWs 3 and 4 admitted they only reached the scene after the fight had begun and did not witness its initiation. PW 3 was related to PW 1, reducing his independence. PW 2 was a 13-year-old schoolboy whose conduct (going to school despite a gravely injured brother) the trial court found implausible.
Suppression of Defence Injuries: PW 1 omitted in court testimony any mention of injuries to the appellant, although he had acknowledged them in his earliest statement (Ex. P-1). Other witnesses also ignored these injuries. The Court viewed this suppression as a material infirmity supporting the trial court’s doubts.
Probability of Prosecution Story: The Court found it improbable that an overnight grievance about a minor ridge alteration, between closely related parties with no prior enmity, would trigger a pre-meditated lethal assault the next morning. The more plausible scenario, accepted by the Sessions Judge, was a sudden quarrel during field work.
Deference to Trial Court Findings: Emphasising that the Sessions Judge had the advantage of observing witnesses, the Supreme Court held that his acquittal could not be overturned without compelling reasons, which the High Court failed to supply.
Benefit of Doubt / Right of Private Defence: Even if the defence of private defence was not conclusively proved, the circumstances raised sufficient doubt that the incident might have occurred as claimed by the appellant. Under criminal jurisprudence, such doubt must enure to the benefit of the accused.

Accordingly, the Court concluded that the High Court erred in substituting its own view for that of the trial court and that the prosecution had not established the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Holding and Implications

APPEAL ALLOWED; CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE; APPELLANT ACQUITTED.

The appellant is to be released forthwith. The decision reinstates the trial court’s acquittal and underscores the principle that an appellate court should not lightly reverse a well-reasoned acquittal, particularly where witness credibility is doubtful and the defence of private defence raises reasonable doubt. No new legal precedent was articulated beyond reaffirming established standards governing interference with acquittals.

Show all summary ...

G.L Oza, J.— This appeal arises out of the conviction of the accused-Appellant 1 under Section 302 and also under Section 447 wherein he was sentenced to imprisonment for life and 3 months rigorous imprisonment respectively whereas Accused 2 was sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 and 3 months under Section 447 IPC. All sentences to run concurrently awarded by the High Court of Madras in an appeal against acquittal filed by the State. The two accused were tried before Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in Sessions Case No. 5 of 1976 for offences under Sections 447 and 302 read with Sections 34 and 324 IPC. This appeal has been preferred only by the present appellant who was sentenced to imprisonment for life and he preferred this appeal from jail. It appears that the other accused has served out the sentence and has chosen not to prefer the appeal.

2. According to the prosecution PW 1 Santhiagoo was residing with his mother Arokiya Mari and his brothers alongwith Arokiyaswami the deceased in this case.

3. The Accused Appellant 1 had married Upakaramari the elder sister of PWs 1 and 2 and the deceased Accused 2 is the son of the Accused 1. The accused on the one hand and PW 1 and his brothers on the other owned agricultural lands adjacent to each other with a ridge separating their lands.

4. It is alleged that a day prior to the occurrence i.e on Monday, December 1, 1975 at about 6 a.m PW 1 and PW 2 and the deceased were carrying out agricultural operations in their fields which is immediately to the east of the land belonging to the accused. Arokiyaswami was ploughing their land while PW 1 was breaking the clots with the spade and PW 2 who is a boy of 13 years and brother of PW 1 and Arokiyaswami was standing under a neem tree close by. During the course of these operations Arokiyaswami, the deceased scrapped a portion of the ridge between their land and the land belonging to the accused. According to the prosecution although the accused persons were also present in their field, but this scrapping of the portion of the ridge by the deceased was not noticed by the accused persons at that time.

5. Next day i.e on December 2, 1975 at about 6 a.m, PWs 1 and 2 and Arokiyaswami the deceased went to their field and Arokiyaswami started ploughing. At that time both the accused came there each carrying a spade and Appellant 1 said to the deceased as to why he cut the bund yesterday when there was none present and further said that you cut it now and they will see him. Saying this he struck the spade by the sharp side on the left wrist of the deceased causing an injury and thereafter second blow was inflicted causing injury a little above the left elbow. It is alleged that at this moment the blade of the spade slipped off and the blade fell on the ground. Arokiyaswami, it is alleged, ran towards his house but Appellant 1 pursued him with the handle of the spade in his hand. At that time Accused 2 inflicted a blow by the sharp side of the spade on PW 1 whereas Appellant 1 after pursuing Arokiyaswami at some distance hit him on his head with the handle. Arokiyaswami is said to have caught hold of the handle but Appellant 1 wrested it again and gave a blow on the head as a result of which Arokiyaswami fell down.

6. According to the prosecution this incident was witnessed by PWs 1, 2 and 3 who owns lands to the south of the land belonging to the accused and PWs 1 and 2 and according to whom he was also in his field at the time and came on the scene of occurrence hearing hue and cry from the field of Arokiyaswami. Similarly PW 4 who also has a field in that area after hearing the cry reached on the spot and witnessed the incident.

7. Immediately after Arokiyaswami fell on the ground the two accused ran away and PWs 1 and 4 carried Arokiyaswami to the house and then PWs 1 and 2 took him in a cart belonging to their uncle to the Government Hospital where PW 5 the Civil Assistant Surgeon examined Arokiyaswami at 8.30 a.m and found on his person a depressed fracture of right side of the skull at frontal bone size 2″x2″, a cut injury on the left wrist at the dorsal aspect 1″ in length skin deep and a cut injury on the left elbow 1″ in length skin deep. Arokiyaswami was unconscious.

8. The doctor also examined PW 1 and found one leniar abrasion 4″ in length in the left forearm at lower one-third. Arokiyaswami was sent to Padukkottai Government Hospital.

9. At about 8.45 a.m PW 11 the Sub-Inspector of Police on receipt of a phone message from the Government Hospital about Arokiyaswami having been admitted in the hospital, reached the hospital. The Sub-Inspector recorded the statement of PWs 1 and 2 and went to the police station and registered an offence under Section 307. Later he went back to the hospital and proceeded with the investigation.

10. Arokiyaswami expired in the hospital at about 12.30 p.m on the same day and an intimation about it was sent to the police station where PW 11 altered the offence into Section 302. After investigation the charge-sheet was filed and on trial the learned Sessions Judge by a judgment dated April 28, 1976 acquitted the two accused from the charge levelled against them.

11. High Court on appeal against acquittal after reassessing the evidence convicted the two accused.

12. In the statement recorded under Section 313 the two accused in their statements stated that when the two accused were on their field and Appellant 1 was ploughing his field at that time PW 1 armed with a spade and deceased Arokiyaswami armed with a aruval came there. It is further stated that the two, Arokiyaswami and PW 1, attempted to put up a channel towards the north adjacent to the west of the common ridge with a spade. At that time Appellant 1 asked him as to why he was doing it as since the date of division there was no channel of that kind and both the parties have been living peacefully. It is alleged that PW 1 and the deceased retorted by saying that they will do so and the appellant has no right to question them. On this it is alleged that the accused snatched the spade from PW 1 and in this process PW 1 sustained a scratch injury on his left hand. At that time Arokiyaswami is alleged to have inflicted an injury with his sharp-edged aruval on the hand of Appellant 1 who warded off that blow with his left hand which resulted in an injury on the left finger and left index finger. The deceased again gave a blow which Appellant 1 warded off with the spade which he had snatched from PW 1 by holding it in his right hand and again he received an injury on the lower portion of the right thumb. Seeing this apprehending danger according to the appellant he out of grave and sudden provocation and in exercise of right of private defence beat Arokiyaswami with the spade in his hands and Arokiyaswami attempted to snatch away the spade from him and in this scuffle Arokiyaswami sustained injuries by the blade of the spade. Arokiyaswami then attempted to attack Appellant 1 by the same spade which he had snatched. Appellant attempted to obstruct the same and therefore Arokiyaswami the deceased gave a blow on the head of Accused 2 and he started bleeding. It is alleged that on this the two appellants ran towards their house but they were chased to some distance by the deceased and PW 1. They also stated that they got their injuries treated by one doctor Simiyon and afterwards knowing about the fact that Arokiyaswami and Santhiagoo were admitted in the hospital and the police was in search of them, they surrendered before the Judicial II Class Magistrate, Pudukkottai. Accused 2 also more or less gave a similar statement.

13. The accused also examined DW 1 Dr Domnic Swaminathan about the injuries on their person. Learned Sessions Judge after considering the evidence examined by the prosecution observed that the story of the first part of the incident on December 1, appeared to be just an improvement as in the context of relations and no history of bad blood, if there was something which happened on December 1, it might not have created any trouble on the second day. The learned Judge also reached this conclusion on the basis of the scrutiny of the evidence itself.

14. As regards the main incident, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the two witnesses who are said to be independent have not been able to clearly state as to how the incident commenced as apparently they must have reached the place of incident after a hue and cry was raised. The other two admittedly are the two brothers and PW 1 is himself injured and PW 2 is a school-going boy whose testimony apart from being interested has been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge for good reasons like that he claims to have gone to the school after the incident when one of the brothers after receiving injuries was unconscious and admitted into the hospital and in this context the learned Sessions Judge felt that the prosecution witnesses have also not explained the injuries on the accused persons and therefore the possibility that the incident took place in the manner in which it was suggested by the defence i.e the exercise of right of private defence could not be excluded. The learned Sessions Judge therefore acquitted the accused from the charge levelled against them.

15. The High Court on appeal set aside the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge and committed the accused as mentioned above. The learned Judges of the High Court felt that the Sessions Judge was not right in drawing the inference about the first day i.e December 1 incident that both the parties were in the fields which are just adjacent to each other still accused persons were not able to notice what according to the prosecution was done by the deceased (chopped off the ridge on his side) but the learned Judges did not consider the size of the fields, that there were no crops standing which could obstruct the vision or any other reason which might have resulted in the obstruction of the view whereas it appears from the evidence of PW 3 that even the fields of others in the neighbourhood are so nearby that they could hear the hue and cry of the trouble when it took place on December 2. It is also significant that the two parties are close relatives, sister of PWs 1 and 2 is married to the accused-Appellant 1. It is also not the case of either party that there was bad blood between the parties. In this context if something happened on December 1 for that an attack as suggested by the prosecution does not appear to be reasonably probable whereas in the context of the circumstances indicated above what appears to be more probable is what the learned Sessions Judge thought to be the situation that when the deceased was doing something with the ridge that on the spur of moment there was hot exchange and in that the trouble arose.

16. It is clear from the evidence of PWs 3 and 4 that they did not see the incident as to how it began. Both claimed to have reached the scene after the trouble had started and the blade of the spade had fallen down as none of these two witnesses even noticed the falling of the blade. It is significant that although PW 3 was produced as an independent witness but he also is found to be a relation of PW 1. It is also clear from the evidence of these two witnesses that they do not talk about any injury to the accused person. PW 1 also in his deposition does not speak about the injury to the accused person whereas in his earliest version Ex. P-1 he had mentioned the injury caused to accused-Appellant 1 and in the earliest version he has not even mentioned about the two other eyewitnesses PWs 3 and 4. It is therefore apparent that an attempt is made even by PW 1 to suppress the fact of injury to accused- Appellant 1. The other witnesses have chosen not to speak about the injury to the accused-appellant and in view of these circumstances it appears that the inference drawn by the Sessions Judge was correct but the learned Judges of the High Court set aside the conclusions arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge without noticing these circumstances. It is also clear that the learned Sessions Judge before whom the evidence was recorded his conclusion on appreciation of evidence deserves due weight. In view of this situation, in our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering in this appeal against acquittal. Even if on the basis of material as it stands, the right of private defence of the accused appellant is not established still the material produced in cross-examination and circumstances discussed above do indicate that the incident might have happened in a manner in which it was suggested by the accused appellant and in this view of the matter it could not be said that the prosecution has been able to establish the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. In this view of the matter the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant will be set at liberty forthwith.