CHACKO @ ANIYAN KUNJU AND ORS. versus STATE OF KERALA

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 900 · Decided: 21-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

) 
A 
CHACKO @ ANIY AN KUNJU AND ORS. 
L· 
V. 
STATE OF KERALA 
JANUARY 21, 2004 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.] 
Penal Code-Sections 299 and 300-Distinction between-Accused using 
'i 
handles of axe and spade for assault of the deceased-Mos/ injuries on non-
C viral parts-Held, the accused can be convicted under Section 304 Part I and 
not 11nder Section 302. 
Indian Evidence Act, 1872-Section 134-Solitary witness-Reliability 
of the evidence of--Evidence of so!itwy eye-witness found to be tr111hf11!-
Held, corroboration not required-Conviction can be maintained on the basis 
D of evidence of the solitGIJ' witness-Penal Code-Section 302. 
Penal Code-Section I 00-Right of private defence to the extent of 
causing death-Exercise of-Evidence by the accused-Acc11sed has to establish 
such apprehension to life and property that retaliation to the exte/11 of causing 
E death was absolutely necesswy. 
The case of the prosecution was that the accused persons had 
previons enmity with the deceased. On the date of occurrence, at 11 p.m., 
the accused persons chased and assaulted the deceased with handle of an 
axe, spade and iron rod. The assault was carried out with the help of 
F torchlight. Most of the injuries were on the hands, legs and ribs of the 
deceased. There was one injury on the head of the deceased. The 
prosecution version indicated that there was a quarrel between the accused 
persons and the deceased. 
During trial, the accused persons denied their guilt and claimed right 
G of private defence. They claimed that there were injuries on the body of 
the accused, which had not been explained by the prosecution. 
H 
The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 read with 
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code holding that the only eye-witness was a 
reliable witness and apart from that, there was the dying declaration of 
900 
r 
t •·..!. 
CHACKO @ANIYAN KUN.JU 1•. STATE OF KERALA 
901 
the deceased. On appeal, the High Court confirnied the conviction and A 
sentence awarded by the Trial Court. 
The accused persons filed an appeal by way of special leave petition 
before the Court. 
Partly allowing the appeal of the accused persons and converting the 
conviction of the accused persons under Section 302, Indian Penal Code B 
into one under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, 
the Court 
HELD: t.t. Conviction can be based on the testimony of single 
witness if he is wholly reliable. Corroboration may be necessary when he 
is only partially reliable. If the evidence is unblemished and beyond all C 
possible criticism and the Court is satisfied that the witness was speaking 
the truth then on his evidence alone conviction can be maintained. 
(906-A-B) 
1.2. There were injuries found on the body of the accused persons 
on the basis of medical evidence. That per se cannot be a ground to totally D 
discard the prosecution version. This is a factor which has to be weighed 
along with other materials to see whether the prosecution version is 
reliable, cogent and trustworthy. When the case of the prosecution is 
supported by an eyewitness who is found to be truthful, mere non-
explanation of the injuries on the accused persons cannot be a foundation E 
for discarding the prosecution version. Additionally, the dying declaration 
was found to be acceptable. 1906-B-CI 
1.3. The right of private defence as claimed by the accused persons 
have been rightly discarded. Merely because there was a quarrel and two 
accused persons sustained injuries, that does not confer a right of private F 
defence extending to the extent of causing death as in this case. Though 
such right cannot be weighed in golden scales, it has to be established that 
the accused persons were under such grave apprehension about the safety 
of their life and property that retaliation to the extent done was absolutely 
necessary. No evidence much less cogent and credible was adduced in this 
regard. (906-C-EI 
G 
2.1. In the scheme of Indian Penal Code culpable homicide is the 
genus and "murder" its specie. All "murder" is "culpable homicide" but 
not vice versa. "Culpable homicide" sans "special characteristics of murder 
is culpable homicide not amounting to murder". For the purpose of fixing 
punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, Indian H 
902 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 1 S. C.R. 
A Penal Code practically recognises three degrees of culpable homicide. The 
first is "culpable homicide
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.