Kumaravel vs State Of Inspector Of Police

(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.,permission to file additional documents and office report )

Date: 23/07/2009 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARJIT SINGH BEDI HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN

For Appellant(s) Mr. K.K. Mani,Adv. Mr. Ankit Swarup,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv.

UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following ORDER

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

[SUMAN WADHWA] [VINOD KULVI] COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

Signed order is placed on the file. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1191 OF 2007

KUMARAVEL ....APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE ...RESPONDENT

ORDER

This appeal has been filed at the instance of the accused against the concurrent

orders of conviction under Section 302 of the IPC and a sentence of

imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default R.I. for two years.

The facts leading to this appeal are as under:-

The deceased, Mani, was the brother-in-law of PW.1-Raman and PW.2-Elumalai.

The appellant, Kumaravel, owned a piece of land situated adjacent to the land

belonging to PWs.1 and 2 and as they shared a common boundary, there was a

dispute between them pertaining thereto. Mani who was married to the sister of

PWs. 1 and 2 stayed in the village of his in laws and helped the PWs in their

agricultural operations.

On 22/09/2001 water had collected in the fields on account of heavy rain

and the appellant drained out the water from his field which flooded the land of

the PWs and destroyed their ground-nut crop. On coming to know as to what

had happened, PW-2 and his father, remonstrated with the appellant who in turn

assaulted them. The animosity between the PWs and their father on the one

side, and the appellant on the other was thereby exacerbated.

On 30-09-2001 Mani went to Siruvathur to work as a daily wager and after

returning therefrom he found PWs1 and 2 and their father harvesting their crop.

At about 3.00 p.m. as Mani was proceeding towards his house, he was waylaid by the appellant who questioned him as to why he was supporting his father-in-

law. He thereafter caught hold of him by his neck, pressed it hard and pushed it

into the muddy water lying stagnant in the field. One PW.3-Maarku Knonar saw

this incident and informed PWs. 1 and 2 who rushed to the place of occurrence

and found the appellant pressing the neck of the deceased into the water. The

appellant then ran away from the spot. The witnesses, however, found that Mani

was dead. A report was duly lodged at the police station and after completion of

the investigation the appellant was charged under Section 302 of the IPC by the

Sessions Court and brought to trial.

The prosecution in support of its case relied primarily on the evidence

of PWs1 and 2 whereas PW.3 turned hostile. The prosecution also produced in

evidence PW.7 Dr. Selvaraj who had conducted the post mortem and who had

opined that death was due to asphyxia. The prosecution case was put to the

accused and he denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded false

implication.

The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated.

This conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court. The matter is

before us by way of special leave.

Mr. K.K. Mani, the learned counsel for the appellant has sought to

contend that the eye witnesses could not be believed on account of animosity

between the parties. He also submitted that in any case there was no intention

on the part of the appellant to have killed the deceased as had he intended to do

so he would have armed himself with some lethal weapons but had on the

contrary used his bare hands to commit the crime. He has submitted that in

case the first submission was not accepted the matter would, nevertheless, fall

within the ambit of Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC. The learned counsel for the State Ms. Promila has, however, argued

that from the perusal of the ocular evidence it was clear that the relations

between the parties were strained and the murder was pre-meditated as the

appellant had waylaid the deceased and drowned him, on account of strained

relations.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve PWs 1 and 2. It is the

admitted position that the relations between the parties were strained but in the

light of the fact that there is only one accused the question of any false

implication would not arise. We, however, find merit in the second argument of

the learned counsel for the appellant and observe that in the light of the fact that

the incident was not pre-meditated and the meeting between the appellant was

co-incidental and only bare hands had been used in suffocating the deceased

who was as per the medical evidence was a healthy and young individual, the

matter would fall within Section 304 Part-I and not Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

We, therefore, allow this appeal to the extent that the conviction is converted

from one under Section 302 to

304 Part-I, of the IPC, and the sentenced is reduced to 10 years R.I.; the fine and the default clause remaining as it is.

............................J. (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.............................J. (DR.B.S. CHAUHAN) New Delhi, July 23, 2009