GOVINDAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 17-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. SUBHASH REDDY · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
515
GOVINDAN
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1665 of 2021)
DECEMBER 17, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Sentence / Sentencing – Quantum of punishment – Appellant
convicted by trial court u/s.304(II) IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years – Conviction and sentence
confirmed by High Court – Issue before Supreme Court limited to
quantum of punishment – Held: With regard to quantum of sentence,
it all depends on background facts of the case, antecedents of the
accused, whether the assault was pre-meditated and pre-planned
or not, etc. – In the present case, there was a dispute with regard to
pathway, which the complainant’s family members were claiming
from the land of the accused – The incident occurred in front of the
house of the accused and when the female family members of the
accused were assaulted, the appellant in retaliation seems to have
assaulted the family members of the complainant – Trial Court itself
recorded that the de facto complainant’s family members were the
aggressors and they tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the
accused from their land – The same was not questioned either by
the State or by the complainant – It was also clearly held by the
Trial Court that it was not a premeditated or pre-planned incident
and happened during a sudden quarrel – Findings recorded by
Trial Court have become final – Fit case to modify the sentence, to
meet the ends of justice – Sentence imposed on appellant modified
to two years’ rigorous imprisonment – IPC – s.304(II).
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. With regard to quantum of sentence, it all depends
on background facts of the case, antecedents of the accused,
whether the assault was premeditated and pre-planned or not,
etc. In this case on hand, it is clear from the evidence on record
that there was a dispute with regard to pathway, which the
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 515
515
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
complainant’s family members were claiming from the land of the
accused. In view of such interference, it appears that the accused
filed a Suit and obtained injunction orders from Civil Court and
in spite of the same, for violation of Court orders, the family
members of the complainant were put behind bars for 30 days.
The same is evident from the deposition of PW-1. The incident
occurred in front of the house of the accused and when the female
family members of the accused were assaulted, the appellant in
retaliation seems to have assaulted the family members of the
complainant. Trial Court itself has recorded that the de facto
complainant’s family members are the aggressors and they have
tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the accused from their
land. The said findings recorded by the Trial Court, became final.
The same was not questioned either by the State or by the
complainant. It is also clearly held by the Trial Court that it was
not a premeditated or pre-planned incident. It happened in
a sudden quarrel on the day of occurrence. [Para 11][519-G-H;
520-A-D]
2. Having regard to such findings recorded by the Trial
Court itself, which have become final and further, in view of the
judgments relied on by the appellant, which support the case of
the appellant for modifying the sentence, this is a fit case to modify
the sentence, to meet the ends of justice. For the aforesaid
reasons, while confirming the conviction for offence under Section
304(ii) of the IPC, the sentence is modified to two years’ rigorous
imprisonment. [Paras 12, 13][520-D-F]
Lakshmi Chand and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2018) 9 SCC 704; Madhavan and Ors. v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2017) 15 SCC 582 and Ram Pyare Mishra v.
Prem Shanker and Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 614 : [2008]
12 SCR 497 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 9 SCC 704
referred to
Para 10
(2017) 15 SCC 582
referred to
Para 10
[2008] 12 SCR 497
referred to
Para 10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
517
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1665 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No.179 of 2015.
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, R. Sudhakaran, Mrs.
Shalini Mishra, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Preeti Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal is preferred by the sole appe

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.