Paneer Selvam vs State of Tamil Nadu Represented By Inspector of Police

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. ……………OF 2023 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (Crl.) No. 533 OF 2021)

PANNEER SELVAM .....APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF TAMIL NADU .....RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the judgement and order

dated 29.03.2019 passed by the High Court of Judicature at

Madras in Crl. Appeal No. 85 of 2019, whereby the High Court

has dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the judgement and

order passed by the 3rd Additional District and Sessions Court,

Fast Track Court, Coimbatore in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2016.

The Sessions Court while acquitting the appellant-accused for

the offence under Section 302 of IPC, had convicted him for the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2023.03.21 offences under Section 304(ii) and 506(i) of IPC and had directed 16:44:40 IST Reason:

him to undergo 07 years of rigorous imprisonment and pay fine of

1 Rs. 5,000/- in default thereof to undergo further simple

imprisonment for a period of 06 months for the offence under

Section 304(ii) IPC, and directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- in

default thereof to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 04

weeks for the offence under Section 506(i) of IPC.

3. This Court vide order dated 13.01.2021, had issued notice to the

respondent only on the quantum of sentence. Accordingly, the

learned counsels for the parties were heard only on limited issue

of the quantum of sentence.

4. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellant-accused and

the deceased-Mahalingam were the relatives. The appellant and

the deceased used to have quarrels prior to the alleged incident

as the deceased used to pester the appellant to get liquor for

him. Frequently, the appellant therefore had developed hatred

against the deceased and had planned to eliminate him. On

14.04.2015, Mariamman Kovil festival was going on in the village

Vellanaipatti, where the appellant and the deceased were

staying. On the said day, at about 05:00 PM, the appellant

deceitfully invited the deceased for having liquor. Along with the

deceased, the appellant had also taken one Sarathkumar Samy

(PW-2) and he took them to a remote place on Nilambur Road.

At about 05:15 PM, a quarrel took place with the appellant and

the deceased, and the appellant thrashed the deceased with

2 repeated blows on his face. As a result, deceased lost his

balance and fell down on the ground. The appellant again

thrashed him on cheeks repeatedly by pressing him on the

ground with his legs. The witness Sarathkumar Samy tried to

intervene but the appellant threatened him not to intervene. The

panicked Sarathkumar on seeing the unconscious Mahalingam

(deceased) requested a passerby named Ponnusamy (PW-3)

who belonged to the same village to give him a phone, and he

then called the brother of the deceased Arulkumar (PW-1).

Arulkumar having come on the spot took his brother Mahalingam

to the Government Hospital at Coimbatore, where his brother

Mahalingam succumbed to the injuries on the next day. He

therefore lodged the complaint before the Kovilpalayam Police

Station against the appellant-accused.

5. The learned senior advocate Mr. S. Nagamuthu submitted that

the fight had occurred between appellant and the deceased on

the spot and there was no premeditation on the part of the

appellant to commit murder of the deceased. He further

submitted that there was nothing on record to suggest that the

appellant had taken undue advantage or had acted in a cruel or

unusual manner. According to him, considering the evidence on

record, the Trial Court and High Court had acquitted the

3 appellant from the charges levelled against him under Section

302 IPC and convicted him only for the offence under Section

304(ii) of IPC. He further submitted that the appellant has already

undergone more than 04 years of the sentence and this is the fit

case to reduce the sentence to the extent of the sentence

undergone by the appellant. However, the learned advocate Dr.

Joseph Aristotle for the respondent-State submitted that the

Sessions Court and High Court have already shown leniency to

the appellant by treating the case as falling under Section 304(ii)

of IPC instead of section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to

undergo rigorous imprisonment of 07 years, which may not be

further reduced.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels

for the parties and to the observations and findings recorded by

the courts below, it appears that the Sessions Court had

convicted the appellant-accused for the offence under Section

304(ii) of IPC by recording the finding that there was no

premeditation and that the appellant-accused had not taken any

undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The

fight had taken place as the deceased used to pester the

appellant to get liquor for him frequently, which had annoyed the

appellant. The Sessions Court while imposing the sentence had

4 also taken into consideration the fact that the appellant-accused

was the only son of his aged parents. Having regard to the said

findings recorded by the Sessions Court and confirmed by the

High Court, this Court is of the opinion that the interest of justice

would be met if the sentence imposed on the appellant-accused

is reduced to the extent of 05 years in place of 07 years.

7. In that view of the matter, the appellant is directed to undergo

rigorous imprisonment for a period of 05 years for the offence

under Section 304(ii) of IPC. Rest of the sentence imposed by the

Sessions Court and confirmed by the High Court shall remain

unchanged. The appeal stands partly allowed accordingly.

..………………………. J.

[AJAY RASTOGI]

…..................................J. [BELA M. TRIVEDI]

NEW DELHI;

21.03.2023

5