MAYANDI versus STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE

Citation: [2010] 9 S.C.R. 127 · Decided: 28-07-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 9 S.C.R. 127 
MAYAN DI 
v. 
STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1501 of 2010) 
JULY 28, 2010 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND C.K. PRASAD, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
A 
B 
s. 326 - Injuries by sickle caused to victim - Death of c 
victim - Medical evidence stating that victim died due to 
complications arising out of heart disease and that there was 
no suggestion that the death was a result of the injuries -
Conviction by trial court u/ss 302, 506(11) and 341 affirmed by 
High Court - HELD: It is the admitted fact that the Doctors 
0 
have not opined that the death was caused due to the injuries 
caused by the appellant - There is also no evidence to show 
that the injuries could have independently caused the death 
of the deceased even if the deceased had not been suffering 
fro;11 a heart problem - It is also the conceded position that 
the deceased had a serious heart problem which was a matter E 
not within the appellant's knowledge and on the contrary the 
medical evidence reveals that the victim had undergone an 
angioplasty but had nevertheless suffered a heart attack 
thereafter- In this background, the High Court's assertion that 
the death was occasioned by complications on account of the 
F 
injuries caused by the appellant is not quite accurate - The 
case would fall within s. 326 and not uls 302- As there was 
no intention on the part of appellant to cause the death of the 
deceased nor could he be ·attributed with the knowledge that 
death would be caused, the case would not fall u/s 304 (part-
G 
I) - Conviction of the accused for the offence uls 302 is altered 
to one uls 326 with a sentence of 10 years R. I. and a fine of 
Rs. 5, 0001- -
The sentence under the other provisions is 
maintained. 
127 
H 
128 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1501 of 2010. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.7.2008 of the High 
Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No. 679 of 2006. 
B 
R. Shunmugha Sundaram, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle 
c 
and Prabhu Ramasubramanian for the Appeallant. 
Sundravardan, S. Thananjayan for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
Leave granted. 
We had issued notice only with regard to the nature of the 
D offence on 14th September 2009. 
We have heard the learned counsel for both parties. 
The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal 
are as under: 
E 
The appellant was an employee working in the kitchen of 
Palmgrove Hotel, Chennai. At about 6.15 a.m. on 8th February 
2.005, the deceased Tr. Manickaraja Bala, the Managing 
Director of the hotel, came to the store room for carrying out a 
store check. As the deceased was returning to his office after 
F checking the store, the appellant Dattacked him with a sickle 
which he had concealed on his person. When the deceased 
tried to escape, the appellant made a further attack on him and 
caused him several injuries on his body and on his hands as 
well. PW.1-Tr. Raghavendran, PW.3-P.S.R. Aziri, PW.4-Tr. 
G Pravin Padival who were around the place came rushing to the 
rescue the deceased but the appellant nevertheless ran away 
from the spot. PW.2, PW.4 and several others then took the 
deceased to the Apollo hospital where he was admitted to the 
Intensive Care Unit. 
H 
A FIR was thereafter recorded for an offence punishable 
MAYANDI v. STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE 
129 
under Sections 307 etc. of the l.P.C. and on the death of the 
A 
injured at about 3.30 a.m. on 9th February 2005 the case was 
altered to one under Section 302 etc. of the IPC. 
The Trial Court on a consideration of the evidence 
convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under 
B 
Sections 302, 506 (II) and 341 of the IPC. This judgment was 
maintained by the High Court as well. It is in this situation that 
the matter is before us today. 
Mr. R.Shunmugham Sundram, the learned senior counsel 
for the appellant has pointed out that a bare perusal of the 
C 
injuries, the post-mortem report and the evidence of the Doctor 
would show that the injuries caused by the appellant were not 
the cause of his death and he had in fact died of Myocardial 
Infarction leading to heart failure. He has further submitted that 
the fact that the deceased was already a heart patient and had o 
undergone angioplasty was a fact not within the knowledge of 
the appellant and in this view of the matter a case under Section 
302 IPC was not spelt out. 
, 
Mr. R. Sunderava

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