MANI versus STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 5 S.C.R. 1131 · Decided: 01-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1131
MANI
v.
STATE OF KERALA  AND OTHERS
(Criminal Appeal No.540 of  2019)
APRIL  01, 2019
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD AND
HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 300, Exception 4, s. 304 (Part I) – Prosecution of seven
accused – For causing death of one person and causing injuries to
eight persons – Trial Court relying on the testimony of injured eye-
witnesses convicted accused Nos. 1 to 4 u/ss. 302, 341 and 324 r/w
s. 34 IPC – Three of the accused were acquitted – High Court upheld
conviction of accused No. 1 (appellant) u/s. 302, and conviction of
accused Nos. 2 to 4 u/ss. 324 and 341 r/w s. 34 – Appeal to Supreme
Court by accused No. 1 challenging his conviction u/s. 302 and
appeal by State challenging the acquittal of accused Nos. 2 to 4
u/s. 302 – Held: There was no common intention in causing death –
Genesis of the dispute was not proved – Statement of witnesses in
respect of injuries caused is not consistent – Plea of private defence
is also not made out – However, all the accused have consistently
deposed that the death was caused by appellant/accused – It was a
case of sudden fight without premeditation – Therefore, it is culpable
homicide not amounting to murder falling within Exception 4 of
s. 300 – Thus, an offence punishable u/s. 304 (Part I) is made out –
Sentence altered to the period already undergone i.e. more than
seven years.
Partly allowing appeal of the accused and dismissing the
appeal of the State, the Court
HELD: 1.
There is no error in the order passed by the
High Court that there was no common intention in causing death.
The prosecution has not produced any evidence showing that
the accused were present at the place of occurrence or that they
were part of the group creating trouble at that place. Genesis to
[2019] 5 S.C.R. 1131
1131
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1132
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019]  5 S.C.R.
the dispute has not been proved by the prosecution. The
statement of the witnesses in respect of injuries caused is not
consistent. However, all the injured witnesses have consistently
deposed the death of deceased by the appellant.
[Paras 11 and 18][1139-A-C; 1136-E]
2. The plea that the appellant acted in his private defence
is not made out.  The injury received by the appellant is not
serious, therefore, he could not have attacked the deceased on
chest which is vital part, as such injury is likely to cause death.
The appellant is not entitled to right of private defence which
does not extend to inflict more harm than it is necessary in
exercise of right of private defence. [Para 20][1139-D-E]
3. The accused had no knowledge or information that the
victims were moving towards the place of incident. The
prosecution witnesses have deposed that the accused or the
victims did not have any personal enmity except political
differences. The appellant was suddenly confronted with the
victims and in the fight ensued in which the injuries came to be
inflicted upon the deceased and other victims.  In view of sudden
fight without any premeditation, the conviction of the appellant
for an offence under Section 302 is not made out. The cause of
death of the deceased is knife blow on the chest of the deceased.
Such injury is with the knowledge that such injury is likely to
cause death, but without any intention to cause death.  Thus, the
death is a culpable homicide not amounting to murder as the death
has occurred in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel falling
within Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it is an offence
punishable under Section 304 Part I, IPC.[Paras 21 and 22]
[1139-F-H; 1140-A-B]
4.  The appellant has undergone more than seven years of
actual imprisonment. Therefore, keeping in view the background
and the circumstances in which the occurrence happened, the
sentence imposed on the appellant is warranted to be modified
to as already undergone while maintaining fine of Rs. 20,000/.
[Para 23][1140-B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1133
Dharam Pal and Others v. State of Haryana AIR 1978
SC 1492 ; Nand Kishore v. State of Madhya Pradesh
AIR 2011 SC 2775 : [2011] 7 SCR 1152 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
AIR 1978 SC 1492
  referred to
Para 15
[2011] 7 SCR 1152
  referred to
Para 15
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION:  Criminal Appeal
No. 540 of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.02.2016 of the High Court
of Kerala at Ernakulam in Criminal Appeal No. 2144/2011
With
Criminal Appeal No. 541 of 2019.
 Basant R., K. N. Balgopal, Sr. Advs., Raghenth Basant, Senthil
Jagadeesan, G. Praka

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