MUNUSWAMY AND ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 550 · Decided: 14-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N. SANTOSH HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MUNUSWAMY AND ORS. 
v. 
ST A TE OF TAMIL NADU 
AUGUST 14, 2002 
B 
[N. SANTOSH HEGDE AND BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.] 
Penal Code, I 860: 
Sections 3021109 and 341-Murder and abetment thereof-Conviction 
C by courts below-Plea that two of the accused could not be convicted as 
injury was caused only by third accused-On appeal, held-In the facts and 
circumstances of the case, the act of third accused cannot be said to be his 
individual act-Hence the other two accused also guilty of the offence-It is 
a case of abetment by conspiracy in which all the conspirators participated 
D at the execution of the plan. 
Sections 302 and 304-Murder-Conviction under Section 302 by 
courts below-Plea to convert the conviction under Section 302-Held, 
injuries on deceased grievous in nature at vital organs-Incident not proved 
to have taken place at spur of moment-Hence conviction cannot be converted 
E . to one under Section 304. 
F 
G 
H 
Appellants were tried for having committed the offences under Sections 
341, 302 read· with Section 109 IPC for having caused death of the deceased. 
The case of the prosecution was that appellant Nos. 2 and 3 followed the 
deceased to the spot of incident where appellant No. 1 was already waiting. 
All the three chased the deceased and over powered him. Witile appellants 1 
and 2 held the hands of a deceased, appellant No. 3 stabbed him on the 
exhortation of appellant No. 1. As per the evidence of doctor, deceased died 
due to injury on vital organs. Trial Court as well as High Court convicted the 
appellants of the offences charged. 
In appeal to this Court appellants contended that appellants Nos.l and 2 
could not be held guilty of the offence under Sections 302/109 IPC as deceased 
was stabbed only by appellant No. 3; and that even appellant No. 3 could be 
punished only under Section 304 IPC as he did. not intend to kill the deceased, 
the knife used for stabbing being only a pen knife. 
550 
MUNUSWAMYv. STATE 
551 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. Appellant No. 3 is guilty of the offence under Section 302 
IPC. It will not be possible to bring his case under any of the exceptions and 
to record his conviction and sentence under Section 304 IPC. Having regard 
to the nature of the injuries and their location, it would be difficult to say that 
A 
the person who assaulted the deceased with a knife did not intend to cause B 
his death of the deceased. Evidence on record show that this is not a case 
where the appellants accidentally met the deceased with whom they had enmity 
of some sort, and at the spur of the moment the assault took place. 
[554-F; 554-B; 553-F[ 
2. Appellants I and 2 have been rightly found guilty of the offence under C 
Section 302/109 IPC. The evidence leaves no room for doubt that the appellants 
had entered into a conspiracy for killing the deceased and pursuant thereto 
appellant No.I waited at the spot while appellants 2 and 3 followed the deceased 
on their bicycle. All of them chased the deceased. After he was over-powered 
by appellants I and 2, on the order of appellant No.I, appellant No.3 stabbed· D 
him. It cannot be said in the facts and circumstances of the case that the act 
of appellant No.3 was merely his individual act, and that appellants 1 and. 2 
cannot be held guilty of the offence under Section 302/109 IPC. On the facts 
found this is a case of abetment by conspiracy in which all the conspirators 
were present and actively participated when the plan was executed. The E 
'appellants came to the place of occurrence in a planned manner. The tacts 
clearly disclose a pre-concerted plan to assault the deceased at the place 
selected by the appellants. [554-G, H; 555-A; 554-B-C-D] 
3. Appellant No. 1 is said to have exhorted his son to stab the deceased. 
Obviously he knew, that his son was carrying a knife or some such weapon, F 
otherwise the word 'stab' would not have been used by appellant No.I. He may 
have merely exhorted his son to assault the deceased. This itself is a clear 
indication of the fact that accused No.I, the father, knew that his son was 
carrying a knife. (554-E] 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 988 G 
of2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.9.2001 of the Chennai High 
Court in Crl. A. Nos. 293 of 1990. 
R. Sundaravardhan, Ramesh N. Keswani, Ram Lal Roy and Shivakumaran, H 
552 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002} SUPP. I S.C.K 
A for the Appellants. 
R. Venkataramani, Ms. Revathy Raghavan and Ms

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