LexMARIAPPAN versus STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 15 S.C.R. 1074 : 2023 INSC 1034 1074 CASE DETAILS MARIAPPAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE (Criminal Appeal No. 3598 of 2023) NOVEMBER 24, 2023 [VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: On the day of incident, heated arguments took place between the two parties. During the quarrel, accused nos.1 and 2 stabbed victim multiple times with sooriknives, while accused no.3, though armed with a spade handle, did not infl ict injuries but facilitated in the attack. The appellant-accused was convicted u/s. 302 IPC. Whether the acts of the accused would come under Exception 4 to s.300 IPC or would be an act of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302. Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s.304 Part-I – Trial Court after examining witnesses and material evidence, convicted appellant- accused no.1 u/s. 302 IPC and acquitted accused nos. 2 and 3 from all charges levelled against them – The High Court confi rmed the order of conviction u/s. 302 of the IPC – Propriety: Held: Right from the beginning i.e. the prosecution story as set up in the FIR was that initially there was a heated discussion between the parties and in a fi t of anger the physical assault took place – Even the ocular testimony is also to the same eff ect – Although on the same evidence the Trial Court has acquitted two co-accused and convicted only the appellant – It has also come in evidence that the appellant had caused only one injury whereas other accused had caused multiple injuries – However, the Trial Court acquitted the other two accused – The previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased had been a contributory factor leading to the verbal altercation but it was not the reason for the accused to carry out a pre-planned fatal attack against the deceased – The appellant had acted “suddenly”, in the heat of passion and without a pre-planned approach to kill the deceased – Hence, it can be safely concluded from the evidence 1075 led in the present case that the appellant’s overt act of killing the deceased happened during a fi t of anger in the heat of a passionate verbal quarrel and would fall under Exception 4 to s.300 IPC – The conviction u/s. 302 IPC is converted to s. 304 Part-I IPC. [Paras 11, 12 and 13] LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES Rampal Singh v. State of U.P, (2012) 8 SCC 289 : [2012] 7 SCR 160; Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217 : [1989] 1 SCR 941 – relied on. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.3598 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2016 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No.151 of 2013. Appearances: T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Subham Kothari, Ms. Preethi, G, Advs. for the Appellant. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT ORDER VIKRAM NATH, J. 1. This appeal assails the correctness of the fi nal Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 whereby the High Court has dismissed the appeal of the present appellant and confi rmed the order of conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and awarding life sentence passed on 05.10.2012 by the Trial Court. 1 IPC MARIAPPAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 15 S.C.R. 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: 2.1 The case involves the off ence of culpable homicide committed by the present appellant. The present appellant was accused no.1 before the Trial Court in S.C.No.177 of 2010 on the fi le of the learned IV Additional District & Session Judge, Erode District, at Bhavani. While the other two accused, i.e., accused nos.2 and 3 were acquitted of all charges by the Trial Court. 2.2 The case involves the murder of one Kolandaippam, wherein the core motive was identifi ed as a longstanding enmity over a land dispute between the deceased and the three accused. Prior to the incident, there were several confrontations and threats, notably 3½ years earlier on the disputed land, and a subsequent altercation involving the deceased’s wife and Pappa, the sister of the fi rst accused. These events, including a police-compromised complaint by the deceased’s wife, intensifi ed the hostility. 2.3 On 17th March 2009, around 6:00 p.m., at Koil Kaadu Chithanattu Salai in Ne
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.