NADODI JAYARAMAN ETC. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 794 · Decided: 28-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NADODI JAYARAMAN ETC. 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
~ 
APRIL 28, 1992 
B 
[R.M. SAHA! AND A.S. ANAND, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302/120-B, 302134 & 304 Part IL· 
~ 
Murder-Trade Union rivalry-Attack by a number of accused with iron 
c rods and iron pipes-Trial-Conviction of some accused and acquittal of 
others--Reliance on testimony of witnesses vis-a-vis ·convicted accused and 
rejection of their testimony vis-a-vis acquitted accused--Legality of-Held 
... 
where injuries are caused by a number of persons Court should ascertain the 
........... ~
common intention of convicted accused-Nature of injuries and weapons 
used held relevant for detennining the common intention-Conviction of 
~ 
D accused altered from Sections 302/34 to one under 304 Part IL 
Maxim--Falsus in uno falsus in omnibus-Applicability of. 
Penology-Conviction-Accused suffered imprisonment for more than 
E 
five years and on bail for more than a decade-No criminal activity by 
accused during this period-Held not desirable to send him back to jail-Sen-
tence reduced to imprisonment already undergone. 
Constitution of India, _1950: Article 136: 
F 
Appeal by Special Leave--Reappraisal of evidence --COncu"ent find-
ings of facts by Court below-Interference with. 
The appellants, A-2 and A-3, along with five co-~ccused were 
prosecuted under Section 120-B read with Section 320 IPC as well as 
under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Besides the co-accused were 
G also prosecuted for various other offences. It was alleged that the accused 
persons conspired together to murder PC, Ex-Vice President of the 
Peravai Workers' Union, and in· pursuance ·of the 'Same committed his·· 
murder. According to the prosecution case there was trade union rivalry 
between the group of the deceased and the group of accused persons. The 
eye witnesses deposed that on the date of occurrence A-2 was questioning 
H PW-22 as to why he bad distributed pamphlets fdi" a meeting to be 
794 
.A 
JAYARAMAN v. STATE 
795 
I 
conducted under the auspices of PC and at that time PC arrived there. A' 
~ 
---.{ 
Thereafter, A·2 to A-7 assaulted him with iron rods and iron pipes. 
Prosecution witnesses who tried to intervene also received injuries at the 
hands of accused persons. Further, when PC tried to escape the accused 
persons chased him and exhorted to do away with him and thereupon they 
again assaulted him indiscriminately with iron rods, as a result of which B, 
he died. The Post Mortem report showed that t~e deceased suffered 32 
-1 
injuries and that the head injury was sufficient to cause death in the 
ordinary course of nature. 
The Trial Court did not accept the testimony of the prosecution 
........ 
witnesses in toto. It rejected the theory of conspiracy and accord~~gly c 
I 
asquitted all the accused persons including the appellants of the c~arges 
of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-8 read with Section 302 IPC. 
->--
However, relying upon the testimony of PW 19, 21, 22, 25, 26 and 27, it 
convicted both the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC 
and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life holding that the 
deceased succumbed to the injuries caused by all the accused persons D 
generally and by A-2 and A-3 in particular. All the other accused were 
acquitted of all other charges framed against them. 
On appeal, the Division Bench of the High Court upheld the convic· 
tion and sentence of the appellants. In appeals to this Court it was 
E 
contended on behalf of the appellants (1) that with the acquittal of 
r 
co-accused or all the charges, the appellant's conviction also became 
vulnerable and since the prosecution witnesses were disbelieyed qua co-
accused even with regard to the assault on deceased, they could not be 
relied upon to convict the appellants; (2) Though the deceased' suffered 
.... 
multiple injuries but only one injury had proved fatal according to the 
medical opinion and since it was not certain that the blow given by either F 
of the appellant was by itself fatal or who out of the two had caused the 
fatal blow or that the same was caused with the intentio!1 of causing death, 
~r-~ the appellants' conviction under Section 302/34 IPC was not warranted; 
and (3) the nature of injuries indicated that the intention of the appellants 
was only to give beating to the deceased and they could be held guilty or G 
an offence under Section 325/34 IPC only. 
Allowing the Appeals, this Court, 
;._ 
HELD : 1. This C

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