Munivel
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2006] Insc 182 (5 April 2006)
S.B.
Sinha & P.P. Naolekar
WITH Criminal
Appeal No. 287/2006 @ S.L.P.(Crl.)No.997/2006 S.B. SINHA, J :
These
two appeals arising out of the same judgment and involving common question of
law and fact were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by
this common judgment.
The
Appellants herein, Munivel (original accused No.5), Kalith (original accused
No.4), Selvam @ Silvakumar (original accused No.1), Sasi @ Sasikumar (original accused
No.2) and Madhu @ Madhusudanan (original accused No.3) were convicted under
Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC' for short)
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Accused No.2 was also
convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous
imprisonment. Accused No.3 was convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Accused No.4 was also convicted
under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven
years. Accused No.5 was also convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to
undergo three years rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences were, however,
directed to run concurrently. In an appeal preferred by the afore-mentioned
accused persons, the High Court modified the judgment of the learned trial
court in the following terms:
"Under
those circumstances, the conviction imposed by the Trial Court on A-1, A-2 and
A-5 or the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC, is perfectly correct.
But a slight modification could be made as regards A-1 and A-2. In the case,
A-3 has been convicted only for Section 302 IPC simplicitor. A-1 has been
convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. But both A-1 and
A-3 have attacked the deceased and caused injury. Though the injury caused by
A-1 is not fatal, it would be appropriate to convict A-1 and A-2 for the
offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. Therefore, the conviction imposed
on A-1 and A-2 is modified to the extent that they are convicted for the
offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC, instead of Section 302 read with
149 IPC and A-2's conviction for the offence under Section 307 IPC is
confirmed." The High Court confirmed the judgment of conviction and
sentence imposed by the Trial Court in respect of other offences on accused
Nos.3, 4 and 5 under Sections 302, 326, 324 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC
respectively.
Accused
Nos. 1, 2 and 3 preferred the special leave petition before this Court, but the
same was dismissed. Mr. A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned Senior Counsel and Mr.
P. Ramesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants in these
appeals, raised only two contentions before us –
-
having regard to
the role played by them, they cannot be said to have committed an offence under
Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC; and
-
no case has been
made out even for convicting them for offences under Sections 326 IPC and 307
IPC respectively.
Before
we advert to the merit of the matters, we may briefly notice the following
facts:
P.W.1-Raja
and P.W.2-Kannan are the sons of deceased Babu Naidu. P.W.3-Venkatesan is his
brother. Tmt. Balamani, who examined herself as P.W.4, is the wife of the
deceased. P.W.5-Leela and P.W.6-Gandhimathi are the daughters of the deceased.
P.W.7- Srinivasan and P.W.8-Panneer Selvam were the friends of the deceased.
P.W.10-Tmt. Pushpa is the wife of afore-mentioned P.W.3- Venkatesan. The
accused Nos.1 and 2 were brothers, whereas accused Nos. 3 and 5 are their associates.
The mother of the accused Nos. 1 and 2, Jayalakshmi, was distantly related to
the deceased. The family of both the parties were carrying on business of chit
transactions. P.W.4-Balamani joined chit transactions carried out by the said Jayalakshmi,
but allegedly did not pay the amount payable therefor regularly. Further,
allegedly, two other subscribers introduced by P.W.4-Balamani had also not paid
back the chit amount to Jayalakshmi, as a result whereof there used to be
frequent quarrels between the parties.
It is
further alleged that a proposal made for marriage of accused No.1-Selvam with a
girl failed. The relatives of the said girl came to the village for inquiring
about the suitability of the accused No.1. On suspicion that certain informations
were allegedly furnished by Babu Naidu, the deceased, pursuant whereto the
girl's family declined to give her in marriage with Selvam, they bore grudge
against the family of the deceased. On 16.3.1994, P.W.1 was in his shop. He was
joined by P.W.2-Kannan. Both of them were proceeding to their houses at about
12.15 in the mid-night. When they reached near their houses, the accused
persons accosted them with deadly weapons. Selvam allegedly shouted at
P.W.2-Kannan saying that in view of their conduct, the image of his family had
been spoiled and so his entire family should be done away with; whereupon
accused No.2-Sasi stabbed P.W.2 on his abdomen as a result whereof he cried
out. His intestines came out. Upon seeing the said ghastly sight, P.W.1-Raja cried
aloud, ran into his house and informed his parents about the said occurrence,
whereupon they rushed to the scene of occurrence. Accused No.3-Madhu,
allegedly, stabbed the deceased on his shoulder and right thigh. When he turned
round and tried to go into the house by climbing the stairs, accused No.1
prevented him from doing so and hit him with a knife on his head. On hearing
the cries, P.W.3-Venkatesan, a neighbour, came out of his house along with his
wife, P.W.10. They saw the incident. When they came to the scene of occurrence,
the accused No.4-Kalith attacked him with a knife on his hand, as a result
whereof P.W.3 suffered an injury on the back side of his right hand, as also in
the fingers. Seeing the said assault, P.W.10 shouted, whereupon accused No.5-Munivel
cut the ring fingers of both her left and right hands. P.W.7-Srinivasan and
P.W.8-Selvam and other persons by that time arrived at the scene.
The
accused persons then fled away. The deceased and other 'injured persons'
thereafter were taken to Virugambakkam Police Station. A First Information
Report (FIR) was lodged. Thereafter, they were referred to Royapettah Hospital. A case was registered for offences under Sections 147,
148, 448, 326 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
On the
basis of the said FIR, P.W.19-Venkateswaran, the Inspector of Police, took up
investigation and visited the scene of occurrence. He, thereafter, received the
message as regard death of the said Babu Naidu, whereafter Section 302 IPC was
also added in the FIR. Keeping in view the nature of injuries suffered by
P.W.2, a dying declaration was also recorded by a Magistrate. During the course
of investigation, the accused persons were arrested and it is stated that on
confession having been made by the accused Nos.3 and 4, two knives marked as M.Os.
4 and 7, as well as a shirt M.O.27 were recovered from their possession.
Similarly, on alleged confession made by the accused Nos. 2 and 4, other
weapons and knives marked as M.Os. 3, 5 and 6 were recovered. All such
recoveries were made on 18.3.1994.
The
part played by each of the Appellants herein and the extent thereof were
categorically stated by all the eye-witnesses 'injured persons' viz., P.Ws. 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 10.
As the
statements of all the material witnesses are identical and corroborative of
each other, we would notice hereinbelow the statements of P.W.1 only, which
reads:
"..On
16.3.94, at 12 O'clock in the night, I was remaining in my
shop. At that time, my brother Kannan who was working under a Doctor came to me
as usual to take me home along with him. Both of us were on our way home. The
five accused came running with knife. Then Selvam intercepted us and said,
"You have not given the chit amount to my mother; you have prevented the
girl who was to be married to me; I will completely destroy all of you with
your family". A-2 Sasi with the knife he was holding in his hand stabbed Kannan
at the left side of his abdomen. Because of this, my elder brother's intestine
has come out. I screamed out and immediately ran to our up-stair.
I told
my mother that, my brother was stabbed by them. At once, my father, came down
from the upstair, without a shirt on him. At that time, Madhu, mechanic, hacked
him at his right shoulder and right thigh. (He showed the length of that knife
by his hand and said, he had hacked with such a knife). A-1 Selvam with a
curved knife hacked my father at the backside of his head. My father swooned
and fell down in a pool of blood.
I, my
mother, my sisters screamed out; 'Oh'. At that time, my uncle Venkatesan and
his wife Pushpa came running from their house, nearby.
The
accused Kali hacked Venkatesan at his right hand, back and fingers. My aunt Pushpa
screamed out "Aioh". At that time, Munivel cut forcibly two of the
fingers of my aunt Pushpa. Seenivasan, Selwaraj, Panneerselvam, Babu and Mohan
chased the accused who were running away. The accused got into an auto at Arunachalam
road and fled." It is not disputed that P.W.3 and P.W.10 are independent
witnesses. It is also not disputed that they suffered some injury on their
hands.
As
regard the nature of injuries suffered by P.W.10 and her husband, P.W.3 was not
cross-examined.
The
injuries on the person of P.W.3 were medically examined by P.W.11-Dr. S. Loganathan.
The said witness stated:
".On
17.3.94 at 1 O'clock in the night, Venkatesan, around 45
years, was brought by P.C.8120. He stated that, he was also attacked at the
same time as has been seen in the Accident Register related to Kannan. On
examining him, he was found in his normal senses and he could also talk. His
ring finger on his right hand was seen cut. There was an incised injury seen on
his back and it measure 2 x 1 x 2"CM. I sent him to the Doctor for
emergency treatment. The aforesaid injury could have been came at the time and
manner said by him. Ex.P.5 is the copy of the related Accident Register. In
that early morning at 1.05 hrs, one Pushpa aged 30 was brought by the aforesaid
Police constable and she was in her senses and she stated that she was attacked
as has been seen in the aforesaid Accident Register and she could talk. The
ring finders of both of her hands were damaged. At that time, there was simple
injury with abrasion noticed on the ring fingers. I sent her to the duty doctor
for treatment.
The
occurrence could have happened at the time and manner stated by her. Ex.P.5 is
the copy of the Accident Register given by me." P.W.10, Pushpa, in her
evidence stated:
".The
witness Venkatesan is my husband. In the 3rd month of 1994, on one day, in the
night, at 12 O'clock, I was keeping awake in my house.
At that time my husband was asleep. On hearing noise, we went out. The 5
accused were having knives with them. A4 attacked my husband with a knife at
his right hand and back. On seeing it, I screamed. At once A5 cut my fingers
forcibly with a knife. Now, I am unable to move my right hand ring finger and
my left hand ring finger.
After
a while, Raja took us by an auto to the Police Station. From there, we went to
the Royapettai hospital." The contention of the learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the Appellants is that the doctor had not disclosed the dimension
of the said injuries. In relation to the injury suffered by P.W.10-Pushpa, it
was also not stated whether the injury was a deep incised wound or not. Our
attention has moreover been drawn to the fact that according to the doctor,
P.W.10 suffered an abrasion. Criticism was also made to the effect that
although the injured were sent to the duty doctor, he had not been examined.
We
may, at this juncture, notice the following findings arrived at by the learned
Sessions Judge:
"As
Kalith had cut off the right hand ring finger of P.W.3 Venkatesan and hacked
him on his back and wounded him; I find him guilty of offence u/s 326 IPC.
The
accused Munivel has attacked P.W.10 Pushpa with knife and inflicted abrasions
and cut away her ring fingers on both her hands. In the related copy of the
Accident Register Ex.P.6, the concerned Dr. Loganathan has failed to mention
this fact and this shows, along with certain other truths, that, he has failed
to discharge his duty.
Hence,
though there are no clear evidence to show that, Pushpa has been inflicted
injuries in such a manner to lose her ring fingers in both her hands and seen
in a shivering state; I find the accused Munivel to be guilty of offence u/s
324 I.P.C." It was submitted that in view of the afore-mentioned finding,
it must be held that no injury was caused to P.W.10-Pushpa by the Appellant-Munivel
and in any view of the matter, her statements before the court being contrary
to the medical evidence, the same should not have been accepted by the trial
court as well as the High Court.
It was
further submitted that having regard to the fact that the Appellants herein had
not participated in the assault on the deceased or his family members, and
further having regard to the fact that they are not related to the accused Nos.
1 and 2, with whom the deceased and his family members were stated to be on
inimical terms, they cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section
302/149 IPC. The learned counsel would contend that in view of the statements
made by the prosecution witnesses, it is highly doubtful that the Appellants
herein had participated in the occurrence and more so because the weapons
seized from them had not been sent for chemical examination. It was further
pointed out that although a finger of P.W.3 was said to have been severed, the
same was not recovered by the Investigating Officer, P.W.19.
Mr. Subramonium
Prasad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, on the other hand,
supported the findings of the courts below.
The
incident in question is not denied or disputed. Death of Babu Naidu is also not
disputed. The fact that P.Ws. have received injuries on their persons, is also
not disputed and otherwise stand proved. A finding of fact has been arrived at
by the trial Judge, as also by the High Court that the offences, with which the
Appellants herein together with other three accused persons were charged with,
have been fully proved. We have noticed hereinbefore that the special leave
petition filed by the main accused, namely, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 has been
dismissed.
The
primary question which would, therefore, arise for our consideration is as to
whether the Appellants herein can be said to have formed a common object with
accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 to commit the alleged offences or not.
All
the accused persons came together. All of them were armed with knives. They
accosted P.Ws. 1 and 2. They caused the death of the deceased round about mid-night
on the street. The first incident took place near the house of the deceased.
The stab injury was given to P.W.2-Kannan as a result whereof his intestines
came out. When P.W.1, on seeing this, went inside the house and narrated the
same to his parents and others, the deceased and his wife P.W.4 came out
followed by their daughters P.W.5 and P.W.6. The deceased was not only given a
fatal blow by the accused No.2, when he intended to save himself from further
attack and was running towards the stairs, he was prevented by accused No.1
from doing so. He was assaulted by him.
P.W.3
and P.W.10 came to the scene of occurrence on hearing their cries. P.W.3,
admittedly, is a constable. It is, therefore, but natural that he sought to
intervene. A grievous injury was caused to him by the Appellant-Kalith.
It is
also natural that seeing her husband being assaulted by a knife, P.W.10 would
make an attempt to intervene. She was also assaulted with a knife resulting in
her suffering injuries on both of her hands. We may now deal with the criticism
that the medical evidence and the ocular evidence in this case is wholly
unwarranted. P.W.11- Dr. S. Loganathan in his deposition referred to the
Accident Register.
So far
as an injury received by P.W.3 is concerned, he categorically stated that not
only his ring finger on right hand had been seen cut, he also suffered an
incised injury on his back, whereupon he was sent to the duty doctor for
emergency treatment. As regards the injury suffered by P.W.10, the doctor
referred to the Accident Register. He found that the ring fingers of both her
hands were injured. He might have mistakenly stated that the same appeared to
him, at that time, to be a simple injury with abrasion, but the fact remains
that she was also sent to the duty doctor/emergency for treatment, which
indicates that the contents of the injury report was correct. It may be that
the duty doctor had not been examined, but the same is not very material for
the purpose of the present case.
Two
facts in this regard are of some significance: firstly, as regard the nature of
injuries suffered by P.W.10, she had not been cross-examined; secondly, P.W.11
referred to the Accident Registers wherein, as regard the injuries suffered by
P.W.3 and P.W.10, it was recorded:
"P.W.3
(Venkatesan): Nature of injury : Alleged assault as per and treatment AR
No.029471 (State simple, grievous or opinion reserved) O/E : Patient conscious
(N.C) Right middle Finger cut off. Cut injury over back of chest about 2"
x 1=". Treatment given Referred to DAOS." P.W.10 (Pushpa):
Nature
of injury :
Alleged
assault by known and treatment- person at about 12.15 a.m. (N.C) (State simple, residing at the above address grievous
by (N.C) knife. opinion reserved) O/E : Patient conscious (N.C) cut injury Left
ring finger and right ring finger.
Treatment
given Refer to DAOS." It was, therefore, clearly established that the said
witnesses suffered injuries.
Doctor,
P.W.11, examined them at about 1 a.m. on
17.3.1994, that is, immediately after the incident took place. We do not find
any material contradiction between the ocular evidence and medical evidence.
The genuineness or otherwise of the said Accident Registers is not in question.
Correctness of the entries made therein is not in issue. Even no suggestion has
been given to the doctor that the entries made in the said Accident Registers
were not correct. Only because the Investigating Officer was negligent and did
not make any attempt to recover the cut fingers of P.W.3, the same by itself
would not be sufficient to discard the consistent evidences of all the
eye-witnesses.
For
the purpose of invoking Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, the entire
incident must be taken into consideration. The occurrence resulted in death of
one person and suffering of grievous injuries by some of the prosecution
witnesses were part of the same transaction.
The
Appellants, as stated, came with the other accused persons with deadly weapons
at mid-night. The active role played by both the Appellants herein, clearly
stand proved by the evidence of the prosecution witnesses.
We
have noticed hereinbefore that not only at the dead of night P.W.1 and other
witnesses were attacked, accused Nos.1 and 2 also went inside the house of the
deceased and prevented the deceased from escaping from further assault.
Whoever
had come to the scene of occurrence and tried to intervene, had suffered
injuries at the hands of one or the other accused persons. P.W.3 and P.W.10, it
is true, were related to the deceased, but, they were also related to accused
Nos. 1 and 2, as admittedly, both the families are related to each other. It is
not the case of the Appellants or for that matter the accused Nos. 1 and 2 that
P.W.3 and P.W.10 were inimical to them. There is nothing on record to show that
they bore any grudge towards them. It is in the afore- mentioned fact
situation, the role played by the Appellants herein must be considered.
They
did not make any attempt to stop the Appellants Nos.1 and 2 from continuing
assault on the family members of P.W.2. They had not only watched as to how
P.W.2-Kannan, son of the deceased, the deceased himself, P.W.-4 wife of
deceased and the two daughters, i.e., P.W.5-Leela and P.W.6-Gandhimathi,
suffered injuries after injuries at the hands of the accused Nos.1 and 3, but
even when P.W.3-Venkatesan came to intervene, a grievous injury was caused by
Appellant-Kalith and when thereafter P.W.10, a lady intervened, she also had
sustained injuries on her hands. It is immaterial, in the afore- mentioned fact
situation obtaining herein that P.W.10 suffered simple injury, in view of the
fact that whoever had come to interfere had been dealt with one way or the
other by the accused persons.
We,
therefore, have no hesitation in rejecting the contentions of the learned
counsel for the Appellants that the medical evidence is contrary to the ocular
evidence and Section 149 is not attracted. In Triloki Nath & Ors. vs. State
of U.P. [(2005) 9 SCALE 76], this Court
opined:
"For
the purpose of attracting Section 149 of the IPC, it is not necessary that
there should be a pre- concert by way of a meeting of the persons of the
unlawful assembly as to the common object. If a common object is adopted by all
the persons and shared by them, it would serve the purpose." Yet again in Bishna
@ Bhiswadeb Mahato & Ors. vs. State of West Bengal [(2005) 9 SCALE 204], the afore-mentioned principle has
been reiterated.
Section
149 of the Indian Penal Code provides for vicarious liability. If an offence is
committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of a common
object thereof or such as the members of that assembly knew that the offence to
be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who at
the time of committing that offence was member would be guilty of the offence
committed. The common object may be commission of one offence while there may
be likelihood of commission of yet another offence, the knowledge whereof is
capable of being safely attributable to the members of the unlawful assembly.
Whether a member of such unlawful assembly was aware as regard likelihood of
commission of another offence or not would depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case. Background of the incident, the motive, the nature
of the assembly, the nature of the arms carried by the members of the assembly,
their common object and the behaviour of the members soon before, at or after
the actual commission of the crime would be relevant factors for drawing an
inference in that behalf. [See Rajendra Shantaram Todankar vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors. reported in (2003) 2 SCC 257.] It is also well-settled that if death
had been caused in prosecution of the common object of an unlawful assembly, it
would not be necessary to record a definite or specific finding as to which
particular accused out of the members of the unlawful assembly caused the fatal
injury. [See State of Rajasthan vs. Nathu & Ors. reported in (2003) 5 SCC
537.] For the foregoing reasons, in our view, there is no merit in these
appeals. The appeals are dismissed accordingly.
Back
