Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ……………OF 2023
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 533 OF 2021)
PANNEER SELVAM .....APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU .....RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order
dated 29.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 85 of 2019, whereby the High Court
has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgement and
rd
order passed by the 3 Additional District and Sessions Court,
Fast Track Court, Coimbatore in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2016.
The Sessions Court while acquitting the appellant-accused for
the offence under Section 302 of IPC, had convicted him for the
Signature Not Verified
offences under Section 304(ii) and 506(i) of IPC and had directed
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2023.03.21
16:44:40 IST
Reason:
him to undergo 07 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of
1
Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof to undergo further simple
imprisonment for a period of 06 months for the offence under
Section 304(ii) IPC, and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in
default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 04
weeks for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC.
3. This Court vide order dated 13.01.2021, had issued notice to the
respondent only on the quantum of sentence. Accordingly, the
learned counsels for the parties were heard only on limited issue
of the quantum of sentence.
4. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant-accused and
the deceased-Mahalingam were the relatives. The appellant and
the deceased used to have quarrels prior to the alleged incident
as the deceased used to pester the appellant to get liquor for
him. Frequently, the appellant therefore had developed hatred
against the deceased and had planned to eliminate him. On
14.04.2015, Mariamman Kovil festival was going on in the village
Vellanaipatti, where the appellant and the deceased were
staying. On the said day, at about 05:00 PM, the appellant
deceitfully invited the deceased for having liquor. Along with the
deceased, the appellant had also taken one Sarathkumar Samy
(PW-2) and he took them to a remote place on Nilambur Road.
At about 05:15 PM, a quarrel took place with the appellant and
the deceased, and the appellant thrashed the deceased with
2
repeated blows on his face. As a result, deceased lost his
balance and fell down on the ground. The appellant again
thrashed him on cheeks repeatedly by pressing him on the
ground with his legs. The witness Sarathkumar Samy tried to
intervene but the appellant threatened him not to intervene. The
panicked Sarathkumar on seeing the unconscious Mahalingam
(deceased) requested a passerby named Ponnusamy (PW-3)
who belonged to the same village to give him a phone, and he
then called the brother of the deceased Arulkumar (PW-1).
Arulkumar having come on the spot took his brother Mahalingam
to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore, where his brother
Mahalingam succumbed to the injuries on the next day. He
therefore lodged the complaint before the Kovilpalayam Police
Station against the appellant-accused.
5. The learned senior advocate Mr. S. Nagamuthu submitted that
the fight had occurred between appellant and the deceased on
the spot and there was no premeditation on the part of the
appellant to commit murder of the deceased. He further
submitted that there was nothing on record to suggest that the
appellant had taken undue advantage or had acted in a cruel or
unusual manner. According to him, considering the evidence on
record, the Trial Court and High Court had acquitted the
3
appellant from the charges levelled against him under Section
302 IPC and convicted him only for the offence under Section
304(ii) of IPC. He further submitted that the appellant has already
undergone more than 04 years of the sentence and this is the fit
case to reduce the sentence to the extent of the sentence
undergone by the appellant. However, the learned advocate Dr.
Joseph Aristotle for the respondent-State submitted that the
Sessions Court and High Court have already shown leniency to
the appellant by treating the case as falling under Section 304(ii)
of IPC instead of section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to
undergo rigorous imprisonment of 07 years, which may not be
further reduced.
6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties and to the observations and findings recorded by
the courts below, it appears that the Sessions Court had
convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section
304(ii) of IPC by recording the finding that there was no
premeditation and that the appellant-accused had not taken any
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The
fight had taken place as the deceased used to pester the
appellant to get liquor for him frequently, which had annoyed the
appellant. The Sessions Court while imposing the sentence had
4
also taken into consideration the fact that the appellant-accused
was the only son of his aged parents. Having regard to the said
findings recorded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the
High Court, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice
would be met if the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused
is reduced to the extent of 05 years in place of 07 years.
7. In that view of the matter, the appellant is directed to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years for the offence
under Section 304(ii) of IPC. Rest of the sentence imposed by the
Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court shall remain
unchanged. The appeal stands partly allowed accordingly.
. .………………………. J.
[AJAY RASTOGI]
…..................................J.
[BELA M. TRIVEDI]
NEW DELHI;
21.03.2023
5