SELVAM versus THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 628 · Decided: 16-10-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
[2012) 9 S.C.R. 628 
SELVAM 
v. 
THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 
POLICE 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1857 of 2009 etc. 
OCTOBER 16, 2012 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] 
PENAL CODE, 1860: 
ss. 304 (Part-I) read with s.34 - Injuries on the head of 
victim by blunt side of 'aruval' and stick - Death of victim in 
hospital after 9 days - Held: The fact that the blunt side of the 
'aruval' and a stick were used in the assault on the deceased 
0 
would go to show that the accused did not have any intention 
to cause his death - Nonetheless, the injuries caused by the 
accused were all on the head of the deceased including the 
parietal and temporal regions - Accused, thus, had the 
intention of causing bodily injury as was likely to cause death 
E 
and were liable to punishment for culpable homicide not 
amounting to murder uls 304 (Part I) - After considering the 
oral and medical evidence and the fact that the deceased died 
after nine days of the assault, the conviction and sentence of 
the appellants u/s 302 is modified and instead they are 
convicted uls 304 (Part-I) read with s. 34 and sentenced to 
F 
rigorous imprisonment for seven years. 
ss. 33 and 34 - Explained. 
The appellants-accused nos. 1, 6, and 7 (A-1, A-6, A-
G 7) along others were prosecuted for committing the 
murder of one 'Ch' (son of PW 2) and causing injuries to 
others. The prosecution case was that there was a land 
dispute between the families of the complainant-PW1 and 
A-1. On 15.11.2006, when the family of A-1 wanted to take 
H 
628 
SELVAM v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY 
629 
INSPECTOR OF POLICE 
a burial procession through the house street of the A 
complainant family, the latter resisted it with the help of 
the village head and others; that on 16.11.2006, at about 
15:00 Hrs., A-1 and his brothers A-2 to A-7 and others 
came to the family house of the complainant and attacked 
its inmates causing injuries to 'Ch' and others. 'Ch' was B 
taken to the hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries 
on 25.11.2006. The trial court convicted A-1 u/s 302 IPC, 
A-6 and A-7 u/s 302 read with s. 34 IPC and A-4 u/s 324 
IPC. The High Court declined to interfere. 
In the instant appeals filed by A-1, A-6 and A-7, it was C 
contended for the appellants that keeping in view the FIR, 
there was improvement in the statements of P Ws 1 and 
2 before the court as regards the role attributed to A-7 and 
the nature of injuries stated to have been caused by A-1 
and A-6; the victim died in the hospital after several days D 
of the incident; and there being inconsistency in the 
ocular evidence and the medical evidence, it was a case 
where ocular evidence could not be believed. 
Allowing the appeal in part, the Court 
HELD: 1. The difference in the version in the FIR and 
the version in the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is not very 
material so as to create a reasonable doubt with regard 
E 
to the participation of A-1, A-6 and A-7 in the assault on F 
the deceased. In the FIR, it has been alleged that A-1 and 
A-6 delivered a cut on the deceased. PW-1, in his 
evidence, has stated that A-1 had delivered a cut on the 
centre of the head of the deceased and A-6 delivered a 
cut on the head of the deceased. Similarly, PW-2 has G 
stated that A-1 delivered cut on the centre of the head of 
the deceased and A-6 snatched the 'aruval' from A-1 and 
delivered a cut on the centre of the head of the deceased. 
The FIR and the evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 are, thus, 
clear that A-1 and A-6 delivered cut injuries on the H 
630 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S.C.R. 
A deceased. Regarding the participation of the A-7 in the 
assault, in the FIR it is alleged that he assaulted on 'us' 
with a stick. Ttie evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 is that A-7 
assaulted on the left side of the head of the deceased with 
a stick. The word 'us' in the FIR cannot mean to exclude 
B the deceased inasmuch as the deceased was the brother 
of PW-1 and was the son of PW-2. There is evidence to 
show that besides the deceased, PW-1 and PW-2 were 
also injured and were treated at the hospital. A-7 has, 
thus, used the stick not just against PW-1 and PW-2, but 
C also against the deceased. Therefore, there is no material 
difference between the version in FIR and in the evidence 
of PW-1 and PW-2 on the role of A-7 in the assault. [para 
10] [637-G-H; 638-A-E] . 
0 
2. The evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 establishes 
beyond reasonable doubt that A-1 used the aruval to 
strike at the head
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.