Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

Marimuthu And Others v. State Of Tamil Nadu .

Supreme Court Of India

Jan 11, 2008

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Important Paras

Please sign up to view Important Paras.

Smart Summary (Beta)

Factual and Procedural Background

Seven residents of Village Santhapuram were tried for offences under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 341 read with Sections 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution alleged that:

They bore longstanding enmity towards the deceased, Peiyakaruppan @ Chinnadurai, who had earlier testified against Accused 2 in a criminal matter and in a civil water-dispute case.
On 27-5-1995, after Accused 1 verbally abused PW 2 Maruthairaj (the deceased’s son), the deceased and PW 2 lodged a police complaint.
Approximately an hour later, all seven accused allegedly lay in wait at Tiruchy-Vayalur Road and attacked the deceased and PW 2 with deadly weapons. Chinnadurai died on the spot; PW 2 sustained multiple injuries. FIR No. 229 of 1995 was registered the same day.

The First Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli convicted all seven accused on 8-12-1997 in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1997. On appeal, the Madras High Court (Madurai Bench) on 21-8-2006 acquitted Accused 4, 6 and 7 but sustained the convictions of Accused 1, 2, 3 and 5 under Section 302 (and, for Accused 1, Section 326). The present Supreme Court appeal is by those four convicted appellants.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the High Court erred in sustaining the convictions of Accused 1, 2, 3 and 5 when three co-accused were acquitted on grounds of doubt and discrepancies in the prosecution case.
Whether, on the proved facts, the offence constituted murder under Section 302 IPC or should be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I IPC.
Whether the appellants could claim the right of private defence in light of injuries allegedly suffered by some accused.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants’ Arguments

The High Court’s partial disbelief of the prosecution narrative (leading to acquittal of Accused 4, 6 and 7) undermined the entire genesis of the incident; all remaining accused should likewise have been acquitted.
The so-called dying declaration of PW 2 lost all status once he survived; therefore the FIR, which added names absent from that declaration, was unreliable.
Evidence that Accused 4 and 7 sustained injuries demonstrated suppression of material facts and supported a plea of self-defence.
Assuming guilt, the facts warranted a conviction under Section 304 IPC, not Section 302 IPC, because the prosecution theory required equal liability of all seven accused, three of whom were acquitted.

Respondent State’s Arguments

The trial court rightly convicted all accused; the High Court granted benefit of doubt to three accused solely due to discrepancies regarding their specific involvement.
The injuries of Accused 4 and 7 were neither proved to have occurred during the incident nor reported to the Magistrate; the claim of self-defence was unsubstantiated.
Medical evidence, the corroborated testimony of injured witness PW 2, and other eyewitnesses (PW 6 and PW 7) firmly established the appellants’ role; the High Court’s convictions were sound.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Supreme Court accepted the concurrent factual findings of the trial court and High Court that:

The parties had entrenched hostility, providing motive.
Two sequential incidents occurred on 27-5-1995: an initial verbal abuse, followed by a coordinated armed assault by the accused while the victims were unarmed.
Medical testimony confirmed eight injuries on the deceased leading to death by shock and haemorrhage, and serious incised wounds on PW 2.

The Court rejected the argument that acquittal of three co-accused necessitated acquittal of all, reasoning that discrepancies benefiting those accused did not negate proof of active participation by the present appellants.

However, it found merit in the submission that the High Court’s finding of an indiscriminate group attack by seven persons—followed by acquittal of nearly half of them—rendered a conviction for murder inappropriate for the remaining appellants. Considering the collective nature of the assault and absence of pre-meditation specific to the four, the Court deemed the offence culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was PARTLY ALLOWED. Convictions under Section 302 IPC were set aside and substituted with convictions under Section 304 Part I IPC. Each appellant (Accused 1, 2, 3 and 5) was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years. The separate conviction and sentence of Accused 1 under Section 326 IPC, including fine, were affirmed.

The decision reduces the punishment from life imprisonment to a fixed ten-year term for these appellants. It does not establish new precedent but demonstrates the Court’s readiness to recalibrate liability where co-accused have been acquitted and evidentiary nuances alter the degree of culpability.

Show all summary ...

C.K Thakker, J.— Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is filed against judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madras (Madurai Bench) on 21-8-2006 in Criminal Appeals Nos. 33 and 36 of 1998 by which it partly confirmed the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the First Addl. District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli on 8-12-1997 in Sessions Case No. 8 of 1997.

3. The facts of the case are as under:

Seven accused were prosecuted for various offences punishable under Sections 302, 307, 326 and 341 read with Sections 148 and 149 of the Penal Code (IPC). The case of the prosecution was that all the accused and deceased Peiyakaruppan @ Chinnadurai belonged to the same Village Santhapuram. Two years prior to the occurrence, deceased Chinnadurai had given evidence in a court of law against Veerabathran, Accused 2 and in favour of Maruthairaj, PW 2 in a criminal case. In connection with a water dispute, there was a civil case and in that civil dispute also, the deceased had given evidence against the accused party. The parties were also on inimical terms in connection with irrigation of agricultural lands.

4. On 27-5-1995, at about 3.30 p.m, PW 2 Maruthairaj, the complainant was standing in front of his house and at that time, Marimuthu, Accused 1 went near the complainant and abused him in filthy language. Deceased Chinnadurai, father of PW 2 Maruthairaj, along with other family members, proceeded to Somarasampet Police Station and lodged a complaint relating to the said incident. At about 4.30 p.m on the same day at Tiruchy-Vayalur Road, near Ambedkar Colony Junction, according to the prosecution story, all the seven accused persons with common object of committing murder of deceased Chinnadurai, attacked him with aruval, bichuva, knife and other lethal weapons. In that attack, Chinnadurai died instantaneously due to multiple injuries. The accused also caused injuries to complainant Maruthairaj, PW 2. FIR was lodged, being Crime No. 229 of 1995 on 27-5-1995. After usual investigation, charge was framed against the accused persons and the matter was committed to the Court of Session.

5. The trial court, by a judgment and order dated 8-12-1997, convicted the accused persons and ordered them to undergo different sentences as mentioned in the operative part of the judgment. Being aggrieved by the said order, all the accused preferred appeals. The appeals were partly allowed by the High Court. Accused 4, 6 and 7 came to be acquitted by the High Court extending benefit of doubt, while Accused 1, 2, 3 and 5 (the appellants herein) were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 IPC for causing death of Chinnadurai. Accused 1 was also convicted for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to PW 2 Maruthairaj. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have approached this Court.

6. Notice was issued on 25-1-2007. The office was directed to place the matter for final disposal and accordingly, the matter has been placed before us.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that when the three accused (Accused 4, 6 and 7) were acquitted by the High Court, it committed an error of law in convicting the remaining accused. The High Court ought to have appreciated that when the Court observed that the prosecution had not come forward with true and complete facts and a part of the story had not been believed, it adversely affected the genesis of the incident and it ought to have acquitted all the accused. It was submitted that so-called dying declaration of PW 2 Maruthairaj was rightly not treated as dying declaration as he survived. In view of the said fact, first information report (FIR) should have been totally discarded as certain names were sought to be added therein. The High Court, on that basis, granted benefit of doubt to three accused, but it went wrong in convicting the appellants on the basis of the said report.

9. It was also submitted that it was proved from the record that Accused 4 and 7 who were acquitted by the High Court, sustained injuries. The said fact also goes to show that there was suppression of fact by the prosecution witnesses and their evidence should not have been relied upon for convicting the appellants. That circumstance supported the defence version that even if the incident had taken place, the accused had exercised right of self-defence.

10. Finally, it was submitted that in any case when three accused were acquitted by the High Court, considering the case of the prosecution that all the seven accused indiscriminately attacked deceased Chinnadurai and committed his murder, the High Court could not have convicted the appellants for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. At the most, the High Court could have convicted them under Section 304 IPC. It was, therefore, submitted that the appeal deserves to be allowed by setting aside and/or modifying the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent State, on the other hand, supported the order of conviction and sentence passed by the High Court. He urged that the trial court was wholly right in convicting all the accused for various offences. It is, no doubt, true that the High Court partly allowed the appeal and granted benefit of doubt to three accused. It was because of the fact that the so-called dying declaration of PW 2 Maruthairaj could not be treated as dying declaration as he survived and there was some discrepancy in FIR recorded and the dying declaration of Maruthairaj. Taking such discrepancy into account and omission of name of Accused 6, he was acquitted.

12. Likewise, considering the fact that Accused 4 and 7 were injured, the High Court thought it fit to give benefit of doubt to them also. But it cannot be ignored that cross-case filed by the accused against the complainant side in the form of First Information Report No. 230 of 1995 was disposed of as “mistake of fact”. Moreover, it was not established that the injuries were sustained by Accused 4 and 7 during the course of one and the same incident. They were not proved. Nor any complaint was made by those accused when they were produced before the Magistrate. In view of all these circumstances, it cannot be said that the High Court was in error in recording conviction against the appellants. Keeping in view injuries caused by the appellants, medical evidence and evidence of other witnesses including PW 2 Maruthairaj, the complainant, who was seriously injured, PW 6, Annamalai and PW 7, Manoharan the High Court convicted the appellants and no fault can be found against such approach of the High Court. It was, therefore, submitted that no case has been made out by the appellants and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, in our opinion, the appeal deserves to be partly allowed. So far as the incident is concerned, both the courts have believed the case of the prosecution. From the substantive evidence of prosecution witnesses, it was clearly proved that the parties were on inimical terms. Two years before the incident, there was a criminal case against the accused and in the said case, Chinnadurai was one of the witnesses for the prosecution against the accused. There were more disputes also and deceased Chinnadurai was favouring the prosecution side and was against the accused party.

14. It has also come in evidence and believed by both the courts that on 27-5-1995, there were two incidents. First incident took place at about 3.30 p.m when PW 2 Maruthairaj was standing in front of his house and was abused by Accused 1. Following procedure of law, PW 2 Maruthairaj and deceased Chinnadurai, went to police station and lodged a complaint against the said accused. There was, therefore, nothing illegal in the act of the deceased and the complainant party. The accused party, however, was very much enraged. The accused assembled together and waited for complainant party to come from police station. They were all armed with deadly weapons and wanted to teach a lesson to deceased Chinnadurai and PW 2 Maruthairaj. The complainant party was not having any weapon with them and they were unarmed. The accused persons indiscriminately assaulted deceased Chinnadurai and PW 2 Maruthairaj.

15. So far as medical evidence is concerned, it clearly established that deceased Chinnadurai sustained as many as eight injuries and he died due to shock and haemorrhage of the injuries received by him. It was thus a homicidal death of the deceased.

16. PW 5 Thirugnanam (doctor) stated in his substantive evidence that on 27-5-1995, while he was on duty as doctor attached to Government Hospital, Tiruchirappalli, at about 6.30 p.m, Maruthairaj, PW 2 was brought by his sister Saroja who had following injuries:

1. Incised wound 8″ length cutting the bone underneath right forehead.

2. Incised wound 4″ length cutting right scapula.

3. Incised wound 2″ skin-deep left forearm.

17. Thus, it is also clear that PW 2 Maruthairaj was injured in the incident and was one of the victims who sustained those injuries during the course of incident. Both the courts, relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, and particularly PW 2 Maruthairaj who was injured witness and thus victim, convicted the appellants. Keeping in mind discrepancy in the first information report and the so-called dying declaration of PW 2 Maruthairaj, the High Court extended benefit of doubt to Accused 6 in view of absence of his name in the dying declaration and also because of “superficial and minor” injuries said to have been sustained by Accused 4 and 7. That does not, however, mean that the appellants were not involved in the incident or they had not attacked deceased Chinnadurai or PW 2 Maruthairaj. It, therefore, cannot be said that the benefit which had been given by the High Court to Accused 4, 6 and 7 should also be given to the present appellants. We, therefore, cannot uphold the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the appellants are also entitled to benefit of doubt.

18. But the learned counsel for the appellants is right in submitting that when the case of the prosecution was that all the seven accused indiscriminately attacked deceased Chinnadurai and caused his death and when the High Court granted benefit of doubt and acquitted three of them (Accused 4, 6 and 7), it would be appropriate if instead of convicting the appellants herein (Accused 1, 2, 3 and 5) for an offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC, they are convicted for an offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I IPC. To that limited extent, the appeal deserves to be allowed by converting their conviction for an offence under Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part I IPC. Instead of ordering the appellants herein to undergo imprisonment for life, we direct them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years. The remaining order as to conviction and sentence imposed on Appellant 1 for an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous injury to PW 2 Maruthairaj and also payment of fine is not disturbed.

19. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed to the extent indicated above.