ARUMUGAM versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2008] 14 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 13-10-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-l 
~--, J 
-\ 
~ 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 309 
ARUMUGAM 
A 
v. 
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU 
(Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2001) 
OCTOBER 13, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 304 (Part /), 302 and s. 300,. exception 4 - Murder or c 
Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder - Fight between 
parties over panchayat elections - Next day accused armed 
with deadly weapons attacked the deceased resulting in his 
death - Incident witnessed by relatives of deceased - Con-
viction u/s. 302 by courts below - Justification of - Held: Evi-
D 
dence of witnesses cannot be discarded on their being close 
relative of deceased- Exception 4 to s. 300 not applicable as 
occurrence did not take place in the course of sudden quarrel 
- On facts of the case and the legal position, conviction al-
tered to s. 304 (Part I) with custodial sentence of 10 years -
E 
Evidence. 
s. 300, Exception 4 - Applicability of - Explained. 
s.300, Exceptions 1 and 4-Distinction between-Ex-
p~~e~ 
F 
Evidence Act, 1872: s. 3 - Testimony of related witness 
- Evidentiary value of - Held: Relationship is not a factor to 
affect credibility of a witness. 
Evidence: Normal discrepancies and material discrep-
G 
ancies - Distinction between - Stated. 
Words and phrases: 'Fight', 'sudden fight' and 'undue ad-
vantage'-Meaning of- In the context of Exception 4 to s. 300, 
/PC. 
309 
H 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
According to the prosecution case, the deceased, A1, 
A3, PW 1 and PW 2 were brothers. The deceased, the ap:-
pellant-A 1, A3, A2;.son ofA3, PW 1. and 2 were living as a 
joint family. Dispute arose between A1, A3 and the de-
ceased over the Panchayat elections. A3 alleged false 
B charges against the deceased. The deceased refuted the 
charges and fight took place between both of them. A3 
also shouted that he would kill the deceased. On the fate-
ful day, A1 armed with spike, A2 with aruval and A3 with 
stick came to the house of deceased and attacked him 
c which resulted in his death on the spot. PW-1, who tried 
to intervene, was also injured. Thereafter, the accused fled · 
away. PW1; PW2 as also PW3, the sister of the deceased, 
witnessed the incident. Trial court convicted the appel-
lant (A-1) for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC. A-2 was 
0 
convicted u/s. 302 r/w s. 34 IPC. A-3 was convicted u/s. 
323 IPC~ A-3 did not file any appeal. High Court upheld 
the order. Hence the appeal by A-1. A-2 did not file appeal 
against order of High Court. 
Appellant-accused contended that evidence of PW 
E 1 and 2 should have been discarded as they were related 
to the deceased; and that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC ·. · 
is applicable as the occurrence took place in the course 
of sudden quarrel, thus, s. 302 IPC was ruled out. 
F 
· Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Relationship is not a factor to affect cred-
ibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation 
would not conceal actual culprit and make "2.-fGgations 
against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if 
G plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court 
has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to 
find out whether it is cogent and credible. The ground that 
the witness being a close relative is. a partisan witness 
and should not be relied upon, has no substance. [Paras 
H 7 and 10] [315-C-D; 316-8] 
\. 
ARUMUGAM v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 
311 
POLICE, TAMIL NADU 
.. -; 
Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab AIR 1953 A 
SC 364; Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan 1974 (3) 
SCC 698; Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras AIR 1957 SC 
614; Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP AIR 1965 SC 202; State 
of Punjab v. Jagir Singh AIR 1973 SC 2407; Lehna v. State of 
Haryana 2002 (3) SCC 76; Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. 
B 
State of Orissa 2002 (8) SCC 381 - referred to. 
4~-J 
2.1 The Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be in-
-~ 
voked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in 
a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken 
undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; c 
and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. 
To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients 
mentioned in it must be satisfied. [Para 15] [318 .. D-E] 
2.2 Where the offender takes undue advantage or has 
D 
._.>., 
acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the benefit of Excep-
..._____, 
tion 4 cannot be given to him. If the weapon used
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.