LexSANTHANAM versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009) 6 S.C.R. 964 "'* A SANTHANAM V. - STATE OF TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 826 of 2009) B APRIL 24, 2009 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] » PENAL CODE, 1860: c s. 304 (Part-I) - Accused with a wooden log causing injuries on head of his rival - Resulting in victim's death - Conviction by trial court u/s 302 - Affirmed by High court - Plea that occurrence took place during the course of D altercation - Held: Proper conviction would be uls 304 (Part - -( - I) - Accused convicted accordingly - Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. ss. ~99 and 300 - Distinction between - Explained. E The appellant and another were prosecuted for commission of offence, inter alia, punishable uls 302 IPC. The prosecution case was that there arose a dispute between the appellant and the farm-servant (deceased) ~- of P.W.1 with regard to the water pipeline. Two days prior F to the incident while the deceased was irrigating the fields, the appellant closed the pipeline and on questioning by the deceased, the former assaulted the latter. On the day of incident when P.W.1 and her husband wanted to convene a Panchayat in this G connection, the appellant along with his co-accused • reached the house of P.W.1 and pulled the deceased. ... -- The appellant assaulted the deceased with a wooden log on his shoulder, forearm and head as a result of which the victim fell down and fainted. Later on he died. The trial - H 964 .... SANTHANAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 965 -<:- court convicted and sentenced the appellant u/s 302 IPC A and acquitted the co-accused of all the charces. Before the High Court the appellant pleaded that the occurrence took place during the course of altercation and, therefore, s.302 IPC was not applicable. The High Court rejected the -• . plea and affirmed the conviction. B Allowing the appeal in part, the Court HELD: 1.1. In the scheme of the IPC, culpable homicide is genus and 'murder' its specie. All 'murder' is 'culpable homicide' but not vice-versa. Speaking C generally, 'culpable homicide' sans special characteristics of murder is 'culpable homicide not amounting tO murder'. For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence, the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of D culpable homicide. The first is, what may be called, 'culpable homicide of the first degree'. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide, which is defined in s.300 as 'murder'. The second may be termed as 'culpable homicide of the second degree'. This is punishable under E the first part of s. 304. Then, there is 'culpable homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this degree is punishable F under the second part of s. 304. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application~of the provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of ss. 299 and 300. [Para 6 and 7) [969-B-G] Rajwant and Anr. v. State of Kera/a AIR 1966 SC 1874; Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr. 1976 (4) SCC 382; Abdul Waheed Khan @ Waheed and Ors. v. State G H 966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 6 S.C.R. A of Andhra Pradesh JT 2002 (6) SC 27 4; Augustine Saldanha ~ v. State of Kamataka 2003 (10) SCC 472 and Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 (9) SCC 650, referred to. _, 1.2. In the peculiar facts of the instant case, the B proper conviction would be u/s 304 (Part I). Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. [Para 19) [975-F-G] Case Law Reference:- ~ ' c 1966 SC 1874 referred to Para 10 AIR 1958 SC 465 referred to Para 11 1976 (4) sec 382 referred to Para 18 JT 2002 (6) SC 27 4 referred to Para 18 D 2003 (10) sec 472 referred to Para 18 -+ - 2005 (9) sec 650 referred to Para 18 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal E No. 826 of 2009. From the Judgment & Order dated 11.4.2007 of the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 648 of 2004. .... F Sushma Manchanda (SCLSC) for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. G 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras H
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.