SETTU AND ORS. versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 185 · Decided: 22-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SETTU AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU 
AUGUST 22, 2006 
(ARIJIT PASAYAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: 
ss. 299, 300, 302, 304(Part !), 324 and 326- Three accused attacking 
one person-Death of victim-Trial court convicting two of them u/s 302 and C 
the third uls 302 r/w 34 !PC-Held, fatal injuries having been inflicted by 
appellant no. I, his conviction and sentence uls 302 confirmed-Taking note 
of weapon used by appellants and place where injuries were inflicted, appellant 
no. 2 convicted u/s 304 (Part !)-His conviction u/s 324 confirmed-Appellant 
no. 3 convicted uls 326-Comparative analysis of provisions of ss.299 and D 
300 made and legal principles deduced 
Appellants were prosecuted for causing death of younger brother of 
P.W. I and causing injuries to P.W. 12, a friend of the deceased. The 
prosecution case was that on the day of occurrence the three appellants 
beat the deceased. The deceased made a complaint to the police. Later, E 
when the deceased and P.W. 12 were returning to their village, in the way, 
they saw the appellants stan~ing with weapons. Appellant no. I gave knife 
injuries on the left side of the head, on the left eye-brow and on the right 
ear of the deceased. When the injured fell down, appellant no. I once again 
inflicted a knife injury on his head. Appellant no. 2 cut the deceased on F 
his back as also on his right knee. When P.W. 12 intervened, appellant 
No. 2 inflicted an injury on his right wrist. Appellant no. 3 caused grievous 
injury on the right hand of the deceased. Besides PW-12, the incident was 
also witnessed by PW-I, who had reached there on hearing about the. 
earlier occurrence. The deceased was taken to the hospital where he 
breathed his last. The trial court .convicted appellant Nos. I and 2 under G 
s.302 and appellant no. 3 under s.302 r/w s.34 IPC and sentenced all of 
them to imprisonment for life. Besides, appellant no. 2 was also convitted 
u/s 324. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence. Aggrieved, 
all the three accused filed the present appeal. 
185 
H 
186 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
It was contended for the appellants that the scenario described by 
the prosecution clearly ruled out application of s.302 IPC; and so far as 
appellant no.3 was concerned, he allegedly assaulted on the right leg and 
not any vital part of the deceased. 
Allowing the appeal as regards appellants no. 2 and 3 in part, the 
B Court 
HELD: I. I. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and 
application of provisions of sections 299 and 300 IPC seems to be to keep 
in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of these sections. In the 
instant case, the factual scenario is examined in the background of the 
C legal principles deduced from various pronouncements of this Court. It is 
the prosecution case that the fatal injuries are attributable to appellant 
no. 1. He assaulted the deceased with a knife which he had kept concealed. 
The appropriate conviction would be in terms of Section 302 IPC so far 
as appellant no. I is concerned and the appeal with regard to him stands 
D dismissed. 1190-D; 194-GI 
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1958) SC 465; Rajwani and Anr. 
v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1966) SC 1874; State of Andhra Pradesh v. 
Rayavarapu Punnayya and Anr., 1197614 SCC 382; Abdul Waheed Khan@ 
Waheed and Ors. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 120021 7 SCC 175 apd 
E Thangaiya v. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (9) sec 650, relied on. 
1.2. Taking note of the weapon used by the appellants and the place 
where injuries were inflicted, appellant no.2 has to be convicted under 
Section 304 (Part I) IPC. His conviction in terms of Section 324 IPC is in 
order. The custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice 
F so far as appellant no.2 is concerned. The sentence awarded by the trial 
court as affirmed by the High Court so far as appellant No.2 is concerned 
in respect of his conviction in terms of Section 324 IPC remains unaltered. 
(194-H; 195-A-B[ 
1.3. So far as appellant no.3 is concerned, he is to be convicted in 
G terms of Section 326 IPC. For appellant no.3, the custodial sentence would 
be three years rigorous imprisonment. (195-A-BI 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 865 
of 2006. 
H 
From the Judgment and Order dated 9.9.2005 of the High Court of 
SETTU v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [PASAYAT . .I.] 
187 
Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 786 of 2000. 
A 
V .A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.