LexSIVAMANI AND ANR. versus STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2023] 14 S.C.R. 849 : 2023 INSC 1027 849 CASE DETAILS SIVAMANI AND ANR. v. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, VELLORE TALUK POLICE STATION, VELLORE DISTRICT (Criminal Appeal No. 3619 of 2023) NOVEMBER 28, 2023 [VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.] HEADNOTES Issue for consideration: Victims sustained simple injuries. Whether Courts below were justifi ed in convicting appellants u/s. 307 IPC. Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 323, 324 and 307 – Trial Court convicted appellants (accused Nos.3 and 4) u/s. 307, IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment – High Court reduced the imprisonment from 10 years to 5 years – Propriety: Held: PW1 and accused no.1 had a dispute concerning a lane between their houses – A civil case regarding the same was also pending between them – Accused nos. 1, 2 and 5 along with appellants (accused Nos.3 and 4) reached the shop of PW-1 – Accused No.2 is stated to have abused PW1 and beaten him – The appellants (accused Nos.3 and 4) tried to attack PW1 with a knife, but PW1 escaped from their attack and caught hold of the appellants’ hands, as a result of which, sustained abrasion injuries on his right shoulder and left thumb – PW2 (PW1’s mother) was also injured – PW13 (doctor) found injuries to be simple in nature – Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case the impugned judgment of the High Court requires to be interfered with – Admittedly, there is no allegation of repeated or severe blows having been infl icted – Even the injuries on PW1 and PW2 have been found to be simple in nature, which is an additional point in the appellants’ favour – From the materials available on record, only off ences u/ss. 323 and 324 of the IPC can be made out – As such, the conviction u/s. 307, IPC is unsustainable. [Paras 5, 6, 9, 10, 11] 850 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2023] 14 S.C.R. LISTS OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES State of Madhya Pradesh v Saleem, (2005) 5 SCC 554: [2005] 1 Suppl. SCR 562; Jage Ram v State of Haryana, (2015) 11 SCC 366: [2015] 11 SCR 1004; State of Madhya Pradesh v Kanha, (2019) 3 SCC 605: [2019] 1 SCR 1074 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED ORDER AND APPEARANCES CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.3619 of 2023. From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2021 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in CRLA No.228 of 2015. Appearances: S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, Ms. Priyaranjani Nagamuthu, R. Sudhakaran, G. R. Vikash, Bilal Mansoor, Advs. for the Appellants. Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Ms. Vaidehi Rastogi, Advs. for the Respondent. JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Leave granted. 3. The present appeal is directed against the Final Order and Judgment dated 06.08.2021 (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras (hereinafter referred to as the “High Court”) in Criminal Appeal No.228 of 2015, whereby the appeal fi led by the appellants against their conviction by the Trial Court under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) and imposition of fi ne of Rs.1000/- each has been confi rmed, but the sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment has been reduced to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment. 851 THE FACTUAL PRISM: 4. The appellants along with three others were named by the Complainant in First Information Report No.409/12 dated 15.09.2012 under Sections 294(b), 323, 324, 452 and 307 read with 109 of the IPC accusing them of a conspiracy to cause the death of the Complainant. Upon trial, the Accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 were acquitted and the appellants, who were Accused Nos.3 and 4 were convicted under Section 307, IPC and sentenced to 10 years’ Rigorous Imprisonment and fi ned Rs.1000/- each. The appeal preferred by the appellants before the High Court did not succeed in full, and only resulted in the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment being reduced from 10 years to 5 years. This gives rise to the present appeal. SUBMISSIONS BY THE APPELLANTS: 5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the case of the prosecution is that there was previous enmity between the Complainant- Prakash alias Chinnaraj/PW1 and Accused No.1. He detailed the prosecution story as follows. It was submitted that PW1 and Accused No.1 had a dispute concerning a lane between their houses. A civil case in suc
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.