Supreme Court of India
PARUSURAMAN @ VELLADURAI AND OTHERS versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
- Decided
- 11 September 1991
- Disposal
- Disposed off
Citations
- Official
- [1991] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · 1991 INSC 228
- Also cited as
- AIR 1993 SC 141
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
KULDIP SINGH, J. Parusuraman @ Velladurai, Karuppaiah, Nagasundaram and four others (hereinafter referred to as Al to A 7) were
p. 2, margin C
tried for the murder of one Jawahar. Three charges were framed against . them. A7 was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. for . instigating Al to 6 to commit the murder. The second charge related to rioting wherein Al, A2, A4, AS and A3, A6 were tried under Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C. respectively. The third charge under Section 302 read with Section 149, I.P.C. was against Al to A6 on the allegations that Al, A2, A4 and A5 armed with sticks, A3 armed with aruval (bill-hook) and A6 armed with vel-stick (spear-stick), attacked Jawahar at about 8.30 A.M. on January 28, 1977 and caused him multiple injuries as a result of which he died on the same day. All the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Trial Judge. On appeal the High Court maintained the acquittal of A4 to A 7 but reversed the findings in respect. of Al to A3. Believing the prosecution evidence, the High Court came to the conclusion that the commission of offence by Al to A3 was proved. They were convicted under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34, l.P.C. and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. This appeal by Al to A3 via special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court. While granting special leave to appeal this Court by its order dated. August 10, 1979 allowed bail to the appellants.
p. 2, margin C
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We agree with the High Court that the participation of the appellants in the occurrence which resulted in the death of Jawahar has been proved beyond doubt. We are, however, of the view that keeping in view the nature of injuries on the person of the deceased and the facts and circumstances of this case the offence committed by the appellants come within the mischief of Section 325 read with 34, l.P.C. Thirteen external injuries were found on the dead body of Jawahar. Out of those 11 were on lower legs and arms. The High Court while considering the nature of offence observed as under:- ''These accused and their associates who be set themselves on Jawahar could never have intertded to cause the death of Jawahar for, if such was their mtention, they could have certainly killed him especially after carrying him into the cholam field and left him dead there instead of merely causing simple and grievous injuries to him. Even with reference to the aspect whether the accused persons could have, intended to cause such injuries as would be sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death, we are not able to give a finding in favour of the prosecution. Even according to Jawahar's statement (Exhibit P-6) all that first accused had remarked was that the attack on him was in retaliation for the injuries Jawahar
pp. 2–3, margin G
had caused on the first accused a few weeks earlier."
p. 3, margin C
Agreeing with the above observations of the High Court we are of the opinion that the intention of the appellants was to cause grievous hurt and as such the offence committed by them comes within the parameters of Section 325, I.P.C. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 304 Part I, l.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. and instead convict them under Section 325, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. We impose the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants. We also impose the sentence of Rs. 7,000 each as fine on the appellants. The appellants shall deposit Rs. 7 ,000 each before the Trial Court within four months from today. In the event of non payment of fine the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The amount of Rs. 21,000 realised as fine from the appellants be paid to the father/mother of deceased Jawahar. In the event of none of them surviving the amount shall be paid to Indra sister of deceased J awahar. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. V.P.R Appeal disposed of.
p. 3, margin D