Settu And Ors vs State Of Tamil Nadu

The trial Court held that the prosecution had established the accusations that on 22.8.1995 at 6.00 P.M. the appellants caused injuries to Ramesh (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by cutting him with knife and pichuvas and as a result of the said injuries, the deceased breathed his life at about 3.2O P.M. on 29.8.1995 at Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore while undergoing treatment. The further allegation against appellant No.2 was that during the incident he caused injuries to Babu (PW-12). Appellant No.2 was accordingly found guilty of offence punishable under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment.

The factual position as highlighted by the prosecution during trial essentially as follows:

P.W.20 reached the scene of occurrence and examined witnesses. As there was no sufficient light at the place, he returned to the police station. In the meantime, P.W.12, who had suffered injury was referred to the hospital and was examined by P.W.19. The doctor found an abrasion on his right wrist measuring 1 X 1/8 cm. P.W.12 complained of pain in his arm. Ex. P.15 is the wound certificate issued by the Doctor. The bloodstained earth and sample earth, M.Os.9 and 10 were seized under a mahazar Ex. P.19. He went to Christian Medical College Hospital, where the deceased was sent from Government Pentland Hospital, Veilore, but he could not record the statement of injured Ramesh as he was unconscious. P.W.20 seized M.O.5 banian and M.O.6 pant, of the deceased Ramesh under a mahazar Ex. P.3. He searched for the appellants and arrested appellant Nos. 2 and 3 at about 1.0O p.m. on 24.8.95 when they were near Bagayam bus stand. They were questioned. The appellant No.2 gave a statement and in pursuance of the admissible portion (Ex. P. 2O) given by him, and on production by him knife and two sticks M.O. 8 series, were seized under a mahazar, (Ex. P.21). On 24.8.95, investigation in the crime was taken up by P.W. 21, the Inspector of Police. On 4.9.1995 appellant No.1 was arrested and on the basis of his statement a knife was recovered.

In order to further its version prosecution examined nine witnesses. Out of them, PWs 2 to 8 made departure from the statement given during investigation. Therefore, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWl and PW12. The trial Court held that the evidence of these two witnesses was cogent, credible and trustworthy and accordingly recorded the convictions and imposed sentence as noted earlier.

(c) with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;

Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender."

The factual scenario is examined in the back ground of the legal principles set out above. The conclusion is that the appropriate conviction would be in terms of Section 302 IPC so far as appellant No.1 is concerned. The appeals stands dismissed so far as he is concerned. It is the prosecution case that the fatal injuries are attributable to him. He had assaulted the deceased with a knife which was concealed by him. Taking note of the weapon used by the appellants and the place where injuries were inflicted, appellant No.2 has to be convicted under Section 304 Part I IPC. So far as appellant No.3 is concerned, he is to be convicted in terms of Section 326 IPC. The conviction of appellant No. 2 in terms of Section 324 IPC is in order. The custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice so far as appellant No.2 is concerned. For appellant No.3, the custodial sentence would be three years rigorous imprisonment. The sentence awarded by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court so far as appellant No.2 is concerned in respect of his conviction in terms of Section 324 IPC remains unaltered. The two sentences imposed on him shall run concurrently. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent, so far as appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are concerned.

In view of the disposal of the appeal itself, no orders are necessary to be passed in miscellaneous petitions. 27963