LexKURUPPUSAMY AND ANR. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
KURUPPUSAMY AND ANR. . l~ STATE OF TAMIL NADU SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 [S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s.304(Part II) rlw s.34-Property dispute-Quarrel over-Person having no concern with property but siding with complainant assaulted-Victim . died the following day-Trial court acquitting one accused, convicting another uls 324 and convicting tWo others uls 302134-High Court affirming their conviction-Plea of self defence not considered at all-Held, trial court A B c . had discarded prosecution case that accused had an intention to kill the D deceased-Though blow given to victim was on a vital part, but it must also be borne in mind that when a person loses his se."'•~. he may act violently-- That by itself may not be a ground to reject plea , "·-zlfdefence-The same should have been considered on its own merit-u ... facts, appellants are guilty of ~iffence u!s 304 (part !!)-Conviction altered accordingly-Criminal E Law-Plea of self-defence-Consideration of Four persons including the two appellants were prosecuted for offences under sections 302/34 and 324/34 IPC. The prosecution case was that there arose a property dispute amongst the members of a joint family, namely, PW- 1 on the one side and A-1 to A-3 on the other. PW-1, A-2 and A-3 are brothers. F A-1 is their father and PW~2 their sister. The deceased was the husband of PW-2. On 5. 7.1994, on the .application of PW-1, the Village Administrative Officer (PW-9) 3nd the Surveyor (PW-10) went in the village to measure the property. There PW-2 and her husband were also present They were said to have taken the side of PW-1. The matter could not be settled and the parties were asked to meet PW-9 in his office. After returning from the office of G PW-9, PW-1, PW-2 and her husband went to the bus stop from where the couple was to take a bus. Later, A-1 to A-4 reached there variously armed. A quarrel took place and A-3 hit the husband of PW-2 on his head with a firewood log. A-2 also hit him on the face with firewood log. The victim fell down. When 785 H 786 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20061 SUPP. 6 S.C.R. A PW-I intervened, he was also assaulted. A-4, the wife of A-3 assaulted PW- 2 on her leg. A-I assaulted his daughter PW-2 with fists. PW-3, an employee of PW-I was also present there and he also witnessed the occurrence. The victim, the husband of PW-2, was taken to the hospital where he succumbed to his injuries the following day. Before the trial court A-2 stated that he acted in self-defence as the deceased tried to stab him; that he went to the B Police Station to lodge the report but he was detained there; thereafter he sent a written report to the Superintendent of Police on 8.7.1994 and also sent its copy to the Inspector of the Police Station. The trial court convicted A-2 and A-3 u/s 302/34 IPC and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. A- 4 was convicted u/s 324 IPC. A-I was acquitted. On appeal, the High Court C confirmed the conviction and sentence of A-2 and A-3. Sentence of A-4 u/s 324 IPC was reduced to the period already undergone. In the present appeal filed by A-2 and A-3, it was contended that the trial Court as also the High Court did not consider their plea of self-defence in proper perspective and that PW-3 in his statement stated to have seen a D knife at the place of occurrence, which has not been explained by the prosecution. Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: I. The fact that the death of the deceased was caused due to E assault upon him by appellants is not in dispute. What is, however, of some significance is that the trial judge acquitted accused no. I and convicted accused no. 4 only under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. He, thus, had discarded the case of the prosecution that the appellants had come in a group to the bus stop with an intention to kill the deceased. It is wholly unlikely F that A-2 wanted to murder the deceased owing to the property dispute. The deceased had nothing to do with that property, although he might have been siding with PW-I. (790-F-G; 791-A-BI 2.1. A-2 was said to be present in the police station at the time when the complaint was lodged. Evidently he also came there to lodge a complaint. G According to him, the Investigating Officer was harassing them and had not been investigating the case properly, as they had been picked up by the police, although they were not at fault. Further PW-3 accepted that a knife wa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.