LexMURALI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
MURALI A v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU NOVEMBER, 14, 2000 [UMESH C. BANERJEE AND K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.] B Practice & Procedure-Criminal Appeal-Notice of appeal restricted to question of Sentence only-Subsequently special leave granted-Appellant contending unfettered leave granted-Held, leave granted limited to question C of sentence only. Penal Code, 1860. Sections 300, 302 and 304 Part I-Exception-Right of Private Defence-Accused present at place of deceased-Accused dragging deceased D and bolting door from inside-Accused coming out of room with blood stained knife-Minor injuries on body of accused-Held, under the facts, plea of private defence not sustainable and conviction under Section 304 Part-I upheld as no appeal preferred by prosecution. Appellant was tried under section 302 Indian Penal Code, 1860 but was convicted under section 304 Part-I, IPC by the Trial Court which was upheld in appeal by the High Cous:t Aggrieved by the Judgment of the High Court, appellant has filed the present appeals. Appellant-accused contended that scope of appeals cannot be restricted to question of sentence only as no condition was attached while granting leave; and that injuries on the body of appellant were serious, suggesting that he had killed deceased under his right of private defence. Respondent-State contended that appeal should be restricted to question of sentence only; and that conviction was based on circumstantial evidence. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: t: The Court directed issuance of notice limited to the question of sentence only. Subsequently, by reason of the objection Court was pleased to grant special leave in the matter. The Leave, as granted by the Court, is to 615 616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. A be treated limited to the question of sentence only. (6l7-B-D] Harbans Singh v. State of Punjab, JT (2000) 10 SC 300, relied on. 2.1. A perusal of the facts makes it clear that the circumstances under which the right of private defence is to be made applicable is not available on B the contextual facts. The accused was found present at the Tea Stall being deceased's plaee of business and as such can be termed fo be an aggressor and as such question of there being any right of-private defence does not arise. The definite evidence in the matter is that _the accused opened the door with a blood stained knife in which he had dragged the deceased and bolted the door from inside. The nature of his injuries are not, however, sufficient by C itself to sustain the plea of private· defence. The injuries on the accused are · rather minor in nature since they were restricted to tender defusion and abrasion. There is no wound much less any serious injury which may even prompt a person to take the most heinous step of committing the murder. D (620-C-D) 2.2. Right of private defence is undoubtedly, a defence available to an accused. but· the Court while dealing with the defence, ought to act with proper circumspectii>n and caution, since the same is an exception rather than a rule. (620-F) E Dev. Narainv. TheStateofUP., [1973) 1 SCC347; WasanSinghv.State F of Punjab, (1996) 1SCC458; Chanan Singh v. State of Punjab, [1979) 4 SCC 399 and Vijayan Alias Aijay Kumr v. State (represented by Inspector of Police, (1999] 4 sec 36, distinguished. CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal Nos. 1236- 1237of1998. From the Judgment and Order dated 20.8.97 of the Madras High Court in Crl. A. No. 744/90 and Crl. M. P. No. 17297 of 1990. G. Krishnan, Radha Krishnan, Mrs, Puspha Rajan and K. B. S. Rajan for G the Appellant. V. G. Pragasam for the Respondent. The following Judgment of the Court was delivered : H The accused is in appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed .. MURALI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 617 by the High Court in affinnation of the finding of guilt under Section 304 Part- A I, IPC and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for five years. During the course of hearing learned Advocate appearing for the respondent- State, contended that the appeal should be restricted to the question of sentence only. The learned Advocate appearing for the appellant however, contended that question of treating the appeal in any restricted manner does B not and cannot arise by reason of subsequent grant of leave without attaching any condition thereto. The records depict that on 20th March, 1998, this Court directed issuance of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.