MUNUSWAMY ALIAS SAIT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was charged for an offence punishable under sec. 302, I. P. C. for allegedly causing the death of Perumal by stabbing him with a knife on his chest. He was also charged for the offence punishable under sec. 307 (later part) of the I. P. C. for stabbing Devaraj with a knife on his head and right hand and he was further charged for the offence punishable under sec. 307 (later part) of the I. P. C. for stabbing Santha with a knife on her chest. THE prosecution examined P. Ws. l to 16 and marked Exs. P-1 to P-13 and m. Os. l to 8. THE accused has examined Eswaran Police Constable as D. W. 1 and marked Ex. R. l on his side. THE learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty under Secs. 304, Part I and 324, I. P. C. (2 counts) and sentenced him under sec. 304, Part I, I. P. C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and sentenced the accused under Sec. 324, I. P. C. (2 counts) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under each count. THE trial court also directed the sentences to run concurrently. THE trial Court found the accused not guilty under Secs. 302 and 303 (later part) I. P. C. (2 counts) and acquitted him.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 18. 12. 1985 at about 8. 30 p. m. the accused with an intention of causing the death of Perumal (deceased) stabbed him and also stabbed Devaraj D. W. I and Santha P. W. 2 and as a result Perumal succumbed to the injury but Devaraj and Santha survived P. W. 1 devaraj is the father of P. W. 2 Santha. THEy were residing at THEnnaimara Street , Arukantham-poondi. THE adult accused Munusamy (appellant) herein and his son juvenile accused Raja (not an accused in this case) are also residing in the same street and they are all neighbours. THEre is a wall separating the houses of adult accused and his son the juvenile accused and the houses of P. Ws. l and 2. THE house of kannammal is situated on the northern side of THEnnaimara Street . In the property of kannammal there were a cattle shed on eastern side and also a vacant site and adjacent to it there was also another cattle shed and on the west of it there was a residential hut also. Kannammal was residing on the extreme western but and to east of it there were two cattled sheds. About three months prior to December, 1985 Kannammal had settled her property in favour of Raja son of the appellant herein. P. W. 1 Devaraj is the brother of the appellant herein. THE deceased perumal is the son of P. W. 1. Even though P. W. l's son is a grandson to kannammal, she did not give any property to P. W. 1 son. On 29. 10. 1985 P. W. 1 gave a petition to P. W. 14 Subramaniam under Ex. P-1 stating that the property of kannammal had to be divided. P. W. 14 called out Kannammal and examined her about the dispute for which Kannammal told P. W. 14 that it was her absolute property and that she had already given the same to the children of the appellant herein. On 24. 11. 1985 there was a panchayat and Ex. P-14 memorandum was prepared in which P. W. 14 obtained the signature of both the parties. In the two cattle sheds belonging to Kannammal the parties of the accused were tying their cattle on the eastern cattle shed and the P. W. 1 and his party were tying cattle in the western shed. Due to the settlement made by Kannammal in favour of the juvenile accused Raja and subsequent to the panchayat there was a misunderstanding between P. W. 1 on the one side and the accused appellant herein on the other side. Even after the settlement and the panchayat P. W. 1 was tying his cattle on the western shed and due to this there were frequent quarrels between P. W. 1 and his brother the appellant herein and neighbours used to compromise the parties. On 18. 121985 at about 8. 30 p. m. P. W. put on the light at the threshold of his house and P. W. 1 asked his son Perumal the deceased herein to tie the cattle in the shed and at that time Perumal was holding a torch light in his hand and the accused asked him as to who was lighting with the battery For which P. W. 1 told that deceased was showing the battery light in his shed only and not in the shed belonging to the accused. THE accused told him P. W. 1 retorted by saying At this stage when the P. W. 1 and the accused were abusing each other, the juvenile accused was standing near the appellant herein and the juvenile accused took out M. O. 2 brick bat and threw it on the left shoulder of p. W. l and P. W. 1 cried On hearing this noise P. W. 8 Raju and his son Jayaraman and others rushed to the place and P. W. l's daughter P. W. 2 also came running to that place. THE appellant took out M. O. 3 knife from his house and he pushed P. W. 1 on the ground and then stabbed on the left hand and head of P. W. 1. THE spectacle M. O. 1 owned by P. W. l feel down and it was broken to pieces. P. W. 2 came running by stating that her father was stabbed and the appellant stabbed p. W. 2 on her left side of the body with M. O. 3 knife. On hearing this Perumal without even tying the cattle in the shed came running to the place. When the deceased Perumal was standing near P. W. 2 the accused stabbed him on his chest with M. O. 3 knife by saying THEreafter the accused ran away towards north and p. W. 1 chased him and the accused slipped with a stone and he fell down opposite to the house of Kannan. P. W. 1 ran after the accused and caught hold of him. THEn there was scuffle between the accused and the P. W. 1 and they were rolling on the ground. P. W. 10 came and separated the accused and P. W. l and the accused got up and ran towards the bank of Palaru. In the meanwhile P. W. 13 Susila on hearing the noise, came to the place of occurrence and found P. W. 2 and Perumal with bleeding injuries lying in the house of P. W. l. P. W. 2 was taken by P. W. 13 and Mallika in a rickshaw to the Government Hospital Vellore for treatment. On 18. 12. 1985 at 8. 50 p. m. P. W. 13 took P. W. 2 to the Government Hospital Vellore and produced her before P. W. 3 Dr. Kathiravan. It appears that P. W. 2 told P. W. 3 that she was stabbed with a knife by a known person near her house at 8 p. m. P. W. 2 treated P. W. 3 by admitting her as an inpatient and P. W. 3 is of opinion that the injury found on P. W. 2 could have been caused by a knife like M. O. 3. THE injury found on P. W. 2 is a simple one. Ex. P-3 is the wound certificate issued by P. W. 3 to P. W. 2. THEn P. W. 2 got herself discharged voluntarily and went to the C. M. C. hospital at Vellore for treatment. P. W. 2 was treated by Dr. Kajirival P. W. 4. He was also of the opinion that the injury on P. W. 2 was simple in nature and he gave wound certificate Ex. P-5 to P. W. 2. P. Ws. 8 and 9 took the injured Perumal in an autorickshaw to the C. M. C. Hospital Vellore for treatment. And Perumal was produced before Dr. George at 8. 45 p. m. on 18. 12. 1985 and P. W. 5 declared that Perumal was already dead. Doctor sent Ex. P-6 death memo to the Vellore North Police Station. P. W. 1 after scuffle with the accused opposite to the house of Kannan came towards his house and the accused ran towards the bank of Palaru. P. W. 1 after coming to his house came to know that P. W. 2 and injured Perumal were taken to the Hospital. So he went to the vellore North Police Station and gave a report Ex. P-2 at 9. 30 p. m. to the inspector of Police P. W. 16. P. W. 16 recorded the statement and read out the same and obtained the signature of P. W. 1. He registered a case in Crl. No. 1267 of 1985 under Sec. 307, I. P. C. and prepared Ex. P-11 printed F. I. R. sent copy to the higher authorities and also sent P. W. 1 with memo Ex. P-27 to the hospital for treatment. P. W. 16 received the death memo Ex. P-6 at 10 P. M. P. W. 16 changed the section into one under 302, I. P. C. and sent express report under Ex. P-22 to the higher authorities. P. W. 16 conducted inquest from 10. 30 p. m. on 19. 12. 1985 till 1 a. m. and Ex. P-23 is the inquest report. He sent a memo Ex. P-7 through P. W. 12 to the Government Hospital along with the dead body for autopsy P. W. 16 inspected the place of occurrence in the presence of p. W. 14 and prepared Ex. P-15 observation mahazar. He noticed the burning of electric light opposite to the house of P. W. 1 at the time when he prepared observation mahazar. Ex. P-24 is the rough sketch and M. Os. l and 2 were recovered under Ex. P-16 mahazar in the presence of P. W. 14. P. W. 16 sent P. W. 1 to p. W. 3 Dr. Kathiravan for treatment. P. W. 1 told P. W. 3 that he was attacked with knife, stick and stone by two persons at about 8. 30 p. m. P. W. 3 noticed incised wound on his head and also on his right hand and left hand also. P. W. 3 noticed other injuries and issued Ex. P-4 wound certificate.

(3.) IN Jagtar Singh v. State of Punjab, A. I. R. 1983 S. C 463: 1983 Crl. L. J. 852: (1983)2 S. C. C. 342: 1983 S. C. C. (Crl.) 459, the Supreme court observed as follows: 'sudden quarrel and supra of moment arising out of trivial reason on chance meeting of parties without premeditation or malice and that an young man causing single blow by knife on the chest of the victim causing his death. The Supreme Court observed that there is no intention to cause death or causing particular injury. But the Supreme Court found that knowledge that he was likely to cause injury which was likely to cause death could however be inferred. Therefore the Supreme Court found the accused not guilty under Sec. 302, I. P. C. and found him guilty under Sec. 304, Part II, i. P. C. IN this case also the occurrence is said to have taken place on a trivial matter. And there was a sudden quarrel and the accused had caused only one stab on the chest of the deceased which resulted in his death of Perumal. Applying the above ratio to the present case the conclusion arrived at by the trial court under Sec. 304, Part I, I. P. C. cannot be accepted. There is evidence that the accused had caused injury at about 8. 30 p. m. IN view of the discussion made above, the conviction under Sec. 304, Part I, I. P. C. against the accused is aside and the accused is found guilty under Sec. 304, Part II, I. P. C. "