SUBRAMANI @ JEEVA @ KULLAJEEVA versus S.H.O., ODIYANSALAI

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 30-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI, C.K. PRASAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 4 S.C.R. 25 
SUBRAMANI @ JEEVA @ KULLAJEEVA 
v. 
S.H.O., ODIYANSALAI 
(Criminal Appeal No.1033 of 2005) 
MARCH 30, 2011 
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND CHANDRAMAULI KR. 
PRASAD, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Penal Code, 1860: s.304 (Part II) - Conviction under -
PW-1, his brother-victim and friends assembled at restaurant C 
for dinner- On slight pretext, the appellant and other accused 
present in the restaurant suffOunded the table on which victim 
and friends were sitting - Appellant stabbed the victim on his 
neck - PW-1 intervened and suffered injuries - Victim was 
./ 
taken to hospital where he was declared dead - Trial court o 
doubted the presence of PW-1 at the time of incident and also 
raised doubt about the test identification parade and ordered' 
acquittal of all accused - High Court confirmed acquittal' of 6 
accused, however,·held acquittal of appellant to be perverse· 
and contrary to the evidence. on record - It relied upon the E 
evidence of PW-1, medical evidence and test identification 
parade and held that incidenttwas the outcome of sudden 
quarrel and, therefore, matter fell1within Exception 4 to s.300 
_and accordingly convict~d appellant u/s.304 (Part II) and 
imposed sef!tence .of 3 years R. I. keeping in view· that F 
appellant had a mentally challenged brother to look after -
On appeal, held: The fact that PW 1 was present at the place 
of incident was fortified by the injuries found on his person -
Though the incident took place in a public restaurant where 
there may be dim lighting but light in the restaurant in 
question was not so dim so as to preclude the identification G 
of appellant- Admittedly, the appellant was not known to PW-
1 before the incident - However, the physical de.scription of 
the appellant was given in the FIR itself - In the absen&e of 
any evidence, the suggestion that PW-1 was drunk, was 
25 
• 
H 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A completely baseless - In the facts of the case, High Court's 
interference in the appeal in so far as the appellant was 
concerned, was fully justified - Keeping in view the fact that 
the incident had happened 15 years earlier and the appellant 
had a mentally challenged brother, High Court had chosen 
B 
to keep the sentence at only three years - No case made out 
for interference even on the quantum of sentence. 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal 
No. 1033 of 2005. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 2.2.2005 of the High 
C Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 769 of 
1996. 
Raju Ragupathi, C. Paramasivam, P. Ramesh, M.P. 
Parthiban, Rakesh K. Sharma for the Appellant. 
D 
V. Kanagraj, V.G. Pragasam, S.J. Aristotle, S. Prabu 
Ramasubramanian, Vipin Jai for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
E 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at a 
very great length, more particularly, as the judgment before us 
is one of reversal; the Trial Court having acquitted all the 
accused and the High Court reversing the judgment qua the 
solitary appellant herein. The facts of the case are as under: 
F 
On the 4th November, 1991 PW.1, along with his brother 
the deceased-Tamilvendhan, went to a restaurant in Labortene 
Street, Pondicherry. At the restaurant his friends PWs. 2, 3,4 
and another person joined them. They ordered their food and 
while they were waiting to be served, asked for some drinks. 
G A short while later they heard sounds of breaking of plates 
inside the restaurant. The seven accused then came out and 
while they were passing by PW's.1,2,4 and the deceased, 
appe!lant-Subramani made an abrasive comment on the 
complainant party. The deceased however laughed at him on 
H which the appellant called his friends and they surrounded the 
... .. 
SUBRAMANI @ JEEVA @ KULLAJEEVA v. S.H.O., 
27 
ODIYANSALAI 
table of the complainants. The appellant also took up a bottle A 
lying on the table, broke it by hitting it on the table and stabbed 
Tamilvendhan on his neck. When PW.1 intervened he too was 
caused injuries in that process. On seeing this PW.2 came out 
to rescue them and he too was attacked by the appellant. The 
deceased fell down on the ground whereafter all the accused 
B 
ran away from the place. The incident happened at about 10.45 
p.m. The deceased, accompanied by the injured PWs 1 and 
2, was then taken to the Government hospital, Pondicherry, 
where they were examined by PW.10 at 11.10 p.m. 
Tamilvendhan was found dead on arrival. Information was also

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