Full Judgment Text
2023 INSC 1034
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.3598 OF 2023
@ SLP(CRL.) NO.15192 OF 2023
DIARY NO.14840 OF 2023
MARIAPPAN …APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR
OF POLICE …RESPONDENT
O R D E R
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. This appeal assails the correctness of the
final Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2016
passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013
whereby the High Court has dismissed the
appeal of the present appellant and
confirmed the order of conviction under
1
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
and awarding life sentence passed on
05.10.2012 by the Trial Court.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Neetu Khajuria
Date: 2023.12.01
16:05:39 IST
Reason:
1
IPC
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 1 of 13
2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
2.1 The case involves the offence of culpable
homicide committed by the present
appellant. The present appellant was
accused no.1 before the Trial Court in
S.C.No.177 of 2010 on the file of the learned
IV Additional District & Session Judge,
Erode District, at Bhavani. While the other
two accused, i.e., accused nos.2 and 3 were
acquitted of all charges by the Trial Court.
2.2 The case involves the murder of one
Kolandaippam, wherein the core motive was
identified as a longstanding enmity over a
land dispute between the deceased and the
three accused. Prior to the incident, there
were several confrontations and threats,
notably 3½ years earlier on the disputed
land, and a subsequent altercation
involving the deceased's wife and Pappa, the
sister of the first accused. These events,
including a police-compromised complaint
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 2 of 13
by the deceased's wife, intensified the
hostility.
2.3 On 17th March 2009, around 6:00 p.m., at
Koil Kaadu Chithanattu Salai in
Neringipettai Village, the deceased, along
with P.Ws.2, 3, and 5, was confronted by
the accused. Heated arguments took place
between the two parties. During the quarrel,
accused nos.1 and 2 stabbed
Kolandaippam multiple times with soori-
knives, while accused no.3, though armed
with a spade handle, did not inflict injuries
but facilitated in the attack. P.W.1, the
daughter of the deceased, witnessed this
event. Following the attack, the deceased
was taken to the Government Hospital at
Bhavani, where Dr. (Mrs.) Janatha
pronounced him dead and a complaint was
lodged at the Ammapettai Police Station,
leading to the registration of a case under
Sections 302 and 324 of IPC.
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 3 of 13
2.4 The investigation, led initially by Subbiah
(P.W.13) and later by A. Rajendran
(P.W.14), involved meticulous collection of
evidence. This included bloodstained earth
from the crime scene, preparation of an
Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch,
and the recovery of the murder weapons.
The autopsy conducted by Dr.
Poornachandrika (P.W.8) revealed multiple
stab wounds as the cause of death,
particularly noting a fatal injury to the
heart.
2.5 Significant evidence contributing to the
appellant’s guilt includes the recovery of the
murder weapon (a soori-knife) and
bloodstained clothes following his voluntary
confession. Additionally, the testimonies of
the eyewitnesses, especially P.W.1, and the
forensic evidence linking the blood group
from the material objects to the deceased,
played a crucial role. Despite some
inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts,
the overwhelming evidence pointed towards
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 4 of 13
the accused no.1's direct involvement in the
assault.
2.6 Upon filing of charge sheet by the
respondent police, a session case was
registered before the Additional Sessions
Judge, Bhavani in S.C.No.177 of 2010. The
Trial Court taking cognizance of the offence,
framed two charges. Charge against the
accused Nos.1 to 3 was under Section 302
read with Section 34 IPC. Charge was
against the accused no.3 under Section 307
IPC.
2.7 The trial involved the examination of 14
witnesses, and the presentation of 18
documents and 9 material objects. While
the accused nos.2 and 3 were acquitted due
to lack of conclusive evidence against them,
the accused no.1, i.e., the appellant herein
was found guilty based on the weight of the
testimonies and other documentary and
material evidence. According to the Trial
Court there was compelling evidence,
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 5 of 13
particularly the recovery of the murder
weapon and the consistency of the
eyewitness testimonies, which duly proved
the conviction of the appellant.
3. As already narrated earlier, by judgment
dated 05.10.2012, the Trial Court convicted
the accused no.1, i.e., the appellant herein
under Section 302 IPC and acquitted accused
Nos.2 and 3 from all the charges levelled
against them. The appellant was sentenced to
undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year for the
said offence.
4. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.151 of
2013 before the High Court at Madras. Vide
order dt. 22.04.2016, the High Court upheld
the Trial Court’s order and dismissed the
appeal of the appellant concluding that the
act of the appellant would squarely fall within
the third limb of Section 300 IPC and the
same would not fall under any of the
Exception to Section 300 IPC and hence he is
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 6 of 13
liable to be punished under Section 302 of
IPC.
5. The appellant has filed the present appeal
against the aforementioned order of the High
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2013
praying to set aside the order of conviction on
several grounds, inter alia, that the Trial
Court held that accused no.1, all of a sudden,
while the wordy quarrel was going on, had
stabbed the deceased in front of his daughter,
son, his relatives and hence his act should
come under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC
and would be guilty of Section 304 part 1 IPC
and should be sentenced accordingly.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent-State supported the judgments
and orders passed by the Trial Court and the
High Court, opposing the arguments of the
appellant.
7. Having heard the arguments of both the
parties, we find that the evidence presented
before the Trial Court and the facts and
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 7 of 13
circumstances of the case clearly establish
beyond reasonable doubt that the wound
caused by the appellant was the reason for
the death of the deceased. The High Court
also reaffirmed this observation that the
injuries with soori-knife caused by the
appellant were the reason for the death of the
deceased.
8. Hence the only question that remains for
consideration before us is whether the act of
the accused is culpable homicide amounting
to murder or not. In other words, the
question is whether the acts of the accused
would come under Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC or would be an act of culpable homicide
amounting to murder punishable under
Section 302.
9. This Court in Rampal Singh v. State of
2
U.P. , while altering the offence under
Section 302 to Section 304 Part 1 of IPC, has
elaborately discussed the distinction between
2
(2012) 8 SCC 289
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 8 of 13
culpable homicide amounting to murder and
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
What is held is that classification would be a
matter of fact depending upon the evidence
led in the trial. Broadly speaking, the factors
to be considered are enumerated in
paragraph 25 thereof. The same is been
reproduced below:
“ 25. As we have already discussed,
classification of an offence into either part of
Section 304 is primarily a matter of fact. This
would have to be decided with reference to the
nature of the offence, intention of the offender,
weapon used, the place and nature of the
injuries, existence of premeditated mind, the
persons participating in the commission of the
crime and to some extent the motive for
commission of the crime. The evidence led by
the parties with reference to all these
circumstances greatly helps the court in
coming to a final conclusion as to under which
penal provision of the Code the accused is
liable to be punished. This can also be decided
from another point of view i.e. by applying the
“principle of exclusion”. This principle could
be applied while taking recourse to a two-stage
process of determination. Firstly, the Court
may record a preliminary finding if the
accused had committed an offence punishable
under the substantive provisions of Section
302 of the Code, that is, “culpable homicide
amounting to murder”. Then secondly, it may
proceed to examine if the case fell in any of the
Exceptions detailed in Section 300 of the
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 9 of 13
Code. This would doubly ensure that the
conclusion arrived at by the court is correct on
facts and sustainable in law. We are stating
such a proposition to indicate that such a
determination would better serve the ends of
criminal justice delivery. This is more so
because presumption of innocence and right
to fair trial are the essence of our criminal
jurisprudence and are accepted as rights of
the accused.”
10. It would also be apt here to refer to the
judgement of Surinder Kumar Vs. Union
3
Territory, Chandigarh , wherein this Court
had laid down the grounds to invoke
Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC:
“7. To invoke this exception four requirements
must be satisfied, namely, (i) it was a sudden
fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the
act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the
assailant had not taken any undue advantage
or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the
quarrel is not relevant no is it relevant who
offered the provocation or started the assault.
The number of wounds caused during the
occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is
important is that the occurrence must have
been sudden and unpremeditated and the
offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of
course, the offender must not have taken any
undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner.
Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the
heat of the moment picks up a weapon which
is handy and causes injuries, one of which
3
(1989) 2 SCC 217
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 10 of 13
proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit
of this exception provided he has not acted
cruelly.”
11. In the present case, while looking at the
facts and circumstances of the case, it can be
seen that the appellant had suddenly
stabbed the deceased during a heated verbal
argument with him and not during a pre-
planned attack which was carried out with
the sole intention of causing the death of the
deceased. The previous enmity between the
appellant and the deceased had been a
contributory factor leading to the verbal
altercation but it was not the reason for the
accused to carry out a pre-planned fatal
attack against the deceased. The appellant
had acted “suddenly”, in the heat of passion
and without a pre-planned approach to kill
the deceased.
12. Right from the beginning i.e. he
prosecution story as set up in the FIR was
that initially there was a heated discussion
between the parties and in a fit of anger the
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 11 of 13
physical assault took place. Even the ocular
testimony is also to the same effect. Although
on the same evidence the Trial Court has
acquitted two co-accused and convicted only
the appellant. It has also come in evidence
that the appellant had caused only one injury
whereas other accused had caused multiple
injuries. However, the Trial Court acquitted
the other two accused.
13. Hence, it can be safely concluded from the
evidence led in the present case that the
appellant’s overt act of killing the deceased
happened during a fit of anger in the heat of
a passionate verbal quarrel and would fall
under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
Moreover, the clear intent needed to prove
culpable homicide amounting to murder has
also not been established by the prosecution.
14. The appeal is partly allowed.
15. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is
Converted to Section 304 Part-I with
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 12 of 13
sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment
and fine of Rs. 50,000/-, to be paid to the
victim’s family.
…………..........................J.
[VIKRAM NATH]
………….........................J.
[RAJESH BINDAL]
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 24, 2023.
Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023 Page 13 of 13