R. JAYAPAL versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-08-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
R. JAYAPAL
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 56 of 2010)
AUGUST 09, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302/34, Part-I of s.304 – Alteration of
conviction from s.302 IPC to Part-I of s.304 – Prosecution case
that there was long-drawn rivalry between the wife of appellant
(accused no.3) and the victim-deceased – It was alleged that
appellant (accused no.1) and his wife (accused no.3) had an
altercation with the victim – Same day, in the evening, it was alleged
that when victim was crossing the lane in front of the house of the
appellant, the appellant came down with a spike, the accused no.2
with sickle and unarmed accused no.3 and attacked the victim –
Appellant stabbed the victim on chest with the spike – Victim died –
FIR was registered – Before the Trial Court, the appellant took the
defence that the deceased had barged into his house with 5-6
persons and assaulted and molested his wife – Appellant contended
that in order to protect his wife, he had exercised the right to private
defence and stabbed the deceased – Trial Court rejected the defence
version and held appellant (accused no.1) and accused no.2 guilty
for offences u/s. 302 IPC and u/s.302/34 IPC respectively and
acquitted wife of the appellant (accused no.3) – High Court
maintained the conviction and sentence of the appellant but found
the accused no.2 not guilty and acquitted him – On appeal, held:
The prosecution was not able to remove all the obvious doubts as to
the place and manner of occurrence, particularly as to who was
the aggressor and how it started – Prosecution was not able to
clear as to how deceased was at the doorstep of the house of
appellant and how the blood stains were also found at the doorstep
of the house of appellant – Besides, the defence version that the
deceased assaulted and molested appellant’s wife is also
unacceptable for want of cogent and convincing evidence –
   [2019] 10 S.C.R. 1
1
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10 S.C.R.
However, the preponderance remains that the occurrence, in all
likelihood, took place at the doorstep of the house of appellant –
Thus, alternative case of appellant that the incident took place
without any pre-meditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion
upon sudden quarrel, when the deceased attempted entry into his
house; and the appellant did neither take any undue advantage
nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner is accepted – Benefit of
Exception 4 of s.300 IPC extended to the appellant – Therefore,
conviction of the appellant altered to one under Part-I of s.304
IPC.
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Both the accused no.2 and accused no.3 were
acquitted. In view of this Court, when accused No. 2 and accused
No. 3 are removed out of scene, the entire complexion of the
prosecution story is altered on material aspects and such an
alteration cannot be ignored as being wholly immaterial or
irrelevant. In other words, if the prosecution case is taken as
false (or at least doubtful) as regards accused No. 2 and accused
No. 3, this part of falsehood (or doubtfulness) is difficult to be
segregated for the purpose of believing the prosecution case qua
the appellant alone. The exercise of sifting the grain from the
chaff in this matter would shake, rather annihilate, the
fundamentals of the prosecution case; and an entirely new
prosecution story shall have to be assumed that when the
deceased was walking down the lane, the appellant alone jumped
on him; gave him a blow; threw the weapon towards his own house
and ran away. In view of this Court, on the facts and in the
circumstances of this case, it would be unsafe to assume such or
akin scene of occurrence in replacement of the story propounded
by the prosecution. As noticed from the decisions referred, when
this Court found that separating the truth from falsehood was not
feasible because of the two being inseparably mixed up, the
prosecution case was discarded in toto. However, such a course
cannot be adopted in this case and it cannot be held that the
appellant was not involved in the occurrence or did not kill the
deceased, essentially for the reason that the appellant himself
took the defence that he assaulted the deceased in exercise of
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
3
R. JAYAPAL v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU & ANR.
his right of private defence when the deceased allegedly intruded
inside his house and attempted to assault and molest his wife. It
is also noticed fr

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