LexJAGEBAR ALI @ SETTU versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 407 • JAGEBAR ALI @ SETTU A v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2007) JANUARY 20, 2009 B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM ~ ,. SHARMA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: c ss. 302 and 302 (part-II) - Main accused causing fatal injuries to victim with 'aruval' - Others joining him in attack - Conviction of main ace.used uls 302 and co-accused uls 304 (part-I/) - Affirmed by High Court - HELD: High Court has indicated reasons for which main accused was treated D differently - In view of findings of trial court and High Court, there is no merit in the appeal filed by main accused - Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - s.3(2)(v). The appellant (A-1) and 14 others were prosecuted E for commission of offences punishable ulss 147, 148, 307 and 302 IPC and s.3(2)(v) of the Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The prosecution case was that on the day of incident at about 5 p.m. a quarrel took place between A-1 on the one side F and PW-1 to PW-4 on the other and one 'J' pacified them. At about 6 p.m. when PW-1 to PW-4 and 'J' went to take tea, A-1, A-2, A-4 to A-6 armed with 'aruvals', A-3 armed with an iron rod, A-7 with a knife and other accused with casurina sticks attacked PWs 1 to 4. 'T' tried to pacify G - '" them but A-1 attacked him with 'aruval', A-2, A-5 and A-7 also joined A-1 in causing injuries to 'T' with their respective arms; A-3 and A-4 attacked PW-1 with their respective weapons, the rest of the accused also 407 H 408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 1 S.C.R. A surrounded PW-1 and attacked him. 'T' died at the spot and PW-1 was taken to the hospital. During investigation A-5 made a confession and produced five 'aruvals, one iron road and one knife. The trial court convicted A-1 of the offence punishable u/s 302 IPC, A-2 to A-7 u/s 304 B (part-II) IPC, A-9 and A-10 u/s 307 and acquitted A-8 and A-11 to A-15. On appeal, the High Court acquitted A-9 and A-10. In the appeal filed by A-1, it was contended for the c appellant that he could not have been treated differently and convicted ufs 302 IPC whereas his co-accused were convicted u/s 304 (part-II) IPC. Dismissing the appeal, the Court D HELD: The High Court has indicated the reasons for which the appellant's case was treated differently. The trial court and the High Court have noted that the appellant had given a fatal blow on the neck of the deceased with aruval and the injury caused by such act E proved fatal. In view of the findings recorded by the trial court and the High Court, there is no merit in the appeal. [Para 3 and 4] [412-D-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 2007. .. F From the Judgment and Order dated 21.7.2006 of the High Court of Madras, Bench at Madurai in Crl. Appeal No. 1473 of 2003. G A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, P.N. Ramalingam, Pugazhenlhi and Balamurugan for the Appellant. R. Sundaravaradhan, S. Thananjayan and R. Nedumaran • • for the Respondent. H The Judgment of the Court was delivered by JAGEBAR ALI @ SETIU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 409 -· DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is A to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court convicting A-1, the present appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC'). A-2 to A-7 were found guilty under Section 304 Part II, IPC and each was sentenced to undergo rigorous B imprisonment for five years. A-3 to A-7 were found guilty of offence under Section 324 IPC and each was sentenced to • undergo RI for two years. A-1 to A-7 were acquitted of the other charges levelled against them. A-9 and A-10 were acquitted of the charges levelled against them. Fifteen persons faced trial, c out of them the trial Court acquitted A-8, A-11 to A-15. By the • impugned judgment, as noted above, the High Court directed acquittal of A-9 and A-10. 2. The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as D ' ~ follows: PW-1 is the native of Thugli Periyar Nagar. PWs 2, 3, 4 5 and 6 belonged to the same place. PWs 2, 3 and 4 were originally employed in Ambika Sugar Mills, Kottur. P.Ws. 6 and 7 are also the residents of the said place and were carrying E on agricultural operations. P.W.8 belonged to Kealathur village, where he was serving as village menial. P.W.9 belonged to Keezhasuriya Moolai village, where he wa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.