LexPARUSURAMAN @ VELLADURAI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
---- - --< PARUSURAMAN @ VELLADURAI AND OTHERS A v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU SEPTEMBER 11, 1991 (KULDIP SINGH AND M.M. PUNCHHI; JJ.J i Penal Code, 1860-Sections 304 Part I, 34-Conviction unde~a ture of injuries caused-Intention of accused-Offence committed to be u/ss. 325, 34--Sentence modified-Fine collected from accused to be paid to B deceased's father/mother/sister. C Three charges were framed against the appellants - Al to A7. A7 was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P!C. for instigating Al to 6 to commit the murder. Al, A2, A4, AS and A3, A6 were tried under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C., respectively and the third charge under section 302 read with S~tion 149, I.P.C. was against Al to A6 on the allegations that Al, A2, A4 and AS armed with sticks, A3 armed with aruval (bill-hook) and A6 armed with vel-stick (spear-stick), attacked the deceased at about 8.30 A.M. on January 28, 1977 and caused him multiple injuries, as a result of which he died on the same day. All the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Trial Judge, against which when appeal was rded, the High Court maintained the acquittal or A4 to A7 but reversed the findings in respect of Al to A3 and were con- victed under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34, I.P.C. and were ·sen- tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, against tha~ this appeal was filed by the appellants-Al to A3 via Special U3ve Petition. Disposing the appeal, by modifying the sentence, this Court, HELD: 1. Thirteen external injuries were round on the dead body of the deceased. Out of these 11 were on lower legs and arms. The intention of the appellants was to cause grievous hurt and as such the offence committed by them comes within the parameters of Section 325, I.P.C. Keeping in view the nature of injuries on the person of the deceased and the facts and circumstances of this case the offence committed by the appellants comes within the mischief of Section 325 read with 34, I.P.C. and convicted them under Section 325, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. imposing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them, and D E F G the sentence of Rs. 7 ,000 each as line, to be deposited before the Trial Court, within four months, which be paid to the father/mother of deceased. H 1 , 2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 1 S. C. R A In the event of non payment of fine the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. [3A, 3D-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 393of1979. B From the Judgment and Order datea 26.4.1979 of the Tamil Nadu High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1978 and Crl. Revision Case No. 833of 1977. U .R. Lalit and K.R. Choudhary for the Appellants. C K.V. Venkataraman for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KULDIP SINGH, J. Parusuraman @ Velladurai, Karuppaiah, Nagasundaram and four others (hereinafter referred to as Al to A 7) were D tried for the murder of one Jawahar. Three charges were framed against . them. A7 was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. for . instigating Al to 6 to commit the murder. The second charge related to rioting wherein Al, A2, A4, AS and A3, A6 were tried under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. respectively. The third charge under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. was against Al to A6 on the allegations that Al, A2, A4 E. and A5 armed with sticks, A3 armed with aruval (bill-hook) and A6 armed with vel-stick (spear-stick), attacked Jawahar at about 8.30 A.M. on January 28, 1977 and caused him multiple injuries as a result of which he died on the same day. All the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Trial Judge. On appeal the High Court maintained the acquittal of A4 to A 7 but reversed the findings in respect. of Al to A3. Believing the p prosecution evidence, the High Court came to the conclusion that the commission of offence by Al to A3 was proved. They were convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34, l.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. This appeal by Al to A3 via special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court. While granting special leave to appeal this Court by its order dated. August G 10, 1979 allowed bail to the appellants. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We agree with the High Court that the participation of the appellants in the occurrenc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.