GOVINDAN versus STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
[2021] 9 S.C.R. 515, Supreme Court of India, 2021
Outcome: Case Partly allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
515
GOVINDAN
v.
STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE
(Criminal Appeal No. 1665 of 2021)
DECEMBER 17, 2021
[R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Sentence / Sentencing – Quantum of punishment – Appellant
convicted by trial court u/s.304(II) IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years – Conviction and sentence
confirmed by High Court – Issue before Supreme Court limited to
quantum of punishment – Held: With regard to quantum of sentence,
it all depends on background facts of the case, antecedents of the
accused, whether the assault was pre-meditated and pre-planned
or not, etc. – In the present case, there was a dispute with regard to
pathway, which the complainant’s family members were claiming
from the land of the accused – The incident occurred in front of the
house of the accused and when the female family members of the
accused were assaulted, the appellant in retaliation seems to have
assaulted the family members of the complainant – Trial Court itself
recorded that the de facto complainant’s family members were the
aggressors and they tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the
accused from their land – The same was not questioned either by
the State or by the complainant – It was also clearly held by the
Trial Court that it was not a premeditated or pre-planned incident
and happened during a sudden quarrel – Findings recorded by
Trial Court have become final – Fit case to modify the sentence, to
meet the
ends of justice – Sentence imposed on appellant modified
to two years’ rigorous imprisonment – IPC – s.304(II).
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD:1. With regard to quantum of sentence, it all depends
on background facts of the case, antecedents of the accused,
whether the assault was premeditated and pre-planned or not,
etc. In this case on hand, it is clear from the evidence on record
that there was a dispute with regard to pathway, which the
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 515
515
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
516
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
complainant’s family members were claiming from the land of the
accused. In view of such interference, it appears that the accused
filed a Suit and obtained injunction orders from Civil Court and
in spite of the same, for violation of Court orders, the family
members of the complainant were put behind bars for 30 days.
The same is evident from the deposition of PW-1. The incident
occurred in front of the house of the accused and when the female
family members of the accused were assaulted, the appellant in
retaliation seems to have assaulted the family members of the
complainant. Trial Court itself has recorded that the de facto
complainant’s family members are the aggressors and they have
tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the accused from their
land. The said findings recorded by the Trial Court, became final.
The same was not questioned either by the State or by the
complainant. It is also clearly held by the Trial Court that it was
not a premeditated or pre-planned incident. It happened in
a sudden quarrel on the day of occurrence. [Para 11][519-G-H;
520-A-D]
2. Having regard to such findings recorded by the Trial
Court itself, which have become final and further, in view of the
judgments relied on by the appellant, which support the case of
the appellant for modifying the sentence, this is a fit case to modify
the sentence, to meet the ends of justice. For the aforesaid
reasons, while confirming the
conviction for offence under Section
304(ii) of the IPC, the sentence is modified to two years’ rigorous
imprisonment. [Paras 12, 13][520-D-F]
Lakshmi Chand and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh,
(2018) 9 SCC 704; Madhavan and Ors. v. State of Tamil
Nadu, (2017) 15 SCC 582 and Ram Pyare Mishra v.
Prem Shanker and Ors., (2008) 14 SCC 614 : [2008]
12 SCR 497 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
(2018) 9 SCC 704
referred to
Para 10
(2017) 15 SCC 582
referred to
Para 10
[2008] 12 SCR 497
referred to
Para 10
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
517
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No.1665 of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2019 of the High Court
of Judicature at Madras in Crl.A. No.179 of 2015.
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., M. P. Parthiban, R. Sudhakaran, Mrs.
Shalini Mishra, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Preeti Singh, Sanjeev Kumar Mahara,
Advs. for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal is preferred by the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal
No.179 of 2015 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras,
aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 16.08.2019.
3. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court has confirmed the
conviction of the appellant/accused no.1 in Sessions Case No.42 of 2011
on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri by which,
the appellant was convicted for offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC
and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to
pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three months rigorous
imprisonment.
4. The sole appellant was tried along with three other accused
persons for offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 307 of IPC and Section
3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused nos.2 to 4 were acquitted of all the
charges, however, the appellant alone was convicted for offence under
Section 304(ii) of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with a fine of Rs.5,000/-.
5. The respondent/complainant and the accused are having
adjoining lands at Kolimekkanur. It is the case of the complainant that
there is an existing pathway from the land of the accused to go to the
land of the complainant party. A Civil Suit was filed by the appellant in
O.S.No.146 of 2010 before the Pappireddypatti District Munsif Court
and an injunction order was granted in favour of the appellant. It was
the case of the prosecution that on the date of occurrence, the accused
GOVINDAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
518
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
tried to put a fence, so as to block the de facto complainant’s family
members using the cart track. On the other hand, the case of the
appellant/accused is that the de facto complainant tried to lay a new cart
track from the patta land of the appellant. In view of such dispute about
the cart track, there was a quarrel in front of the appellant’s house by de
facto complainant’s family members. In the said quarrel, female family
members of the appellant namely Ms.Kaliammal and Ms.Rajammal
suffered injuries, which provoked the appellant/accused Govindan to
attack on the deceased and cause knife injuries which resulted in death
of the deceased Kamsala.
6. The Trial Court by appreciating oral and documentary evidence
on record, has recorded a finding that the de facto complainant’s family
members were the aggressors and they have tried to disturb the peaceful
possession of the accused. The Trial Court also found that the appellant
stabbed the deceased, Kamsala with a knife, but there was no
premeditation or pre-planning and it was a sudden quarrel and the
appellant exercised his right of private defence, but exceeded the limit.
7. The High Court while dismissing the Criminal Appeal, has
observed that when the Civil Suit is pending between the parties and if
at all, the de facto complainant passed through their patta land, the
appellant/accused should have availed a remedy before the Civil Court,
but should not have
attacked the deceased.
8. We have heard Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel
appearing for the appellant and Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., learned counsel
appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu.
9. This Court by order dated 29.01.2021 issued notice, limited to
the quantum of punishment. The Trial Court itself has found that there
was a quarrel in front of house of the accused by the de facto
complainant’s family members on the date of incident. It is also clear
from the evidence on record that on the date of occurrence i.e.
13.06.2010, the dispute was only on account of cart track from the land
of accused to reach the land of the complainant. When there was an
interference with the land of the accused, a Civil Suit was filed in which
there were injunction orders issued by the competent Civil Court. In
deposition, PW-1 also admitted that he along with his father, younger
brother and mother were put in civil prison for 30 days for violating the
orders of the Court. Learned senior counsel for the appellant has
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
519
contended that the unfortunate incident happened only on account of
civil dispute and when the complainant’s family members themselves
have assaulted the female family members of the appellant, it provoked
the accused to retaliate on the family members of de facto complainant.
The Trial Court itself has recorded a finding that the complainant’s family
members are aggressors and there was no premeditation or pre- planning
and it was a sudden quarrel, where the appellant exercised his right of
private defence. It is also submitted that with regard to injuries caused
on family members of the appellant, in spite of complaint, no steps were
taken to prosecute the family of the complainant. On the other hand,
learned counsel for the respondent-State has submitted that as the
appellant was convicted under Section 304(ii) of IPC, as such, no case
is made out to modify the sentence also.
10. In the judgment of this Court in the case of Lakshmi Chand
and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh1, relied on by the learned senior
counsel for the appellant, this Court has reduced the sentence from
eight years to two years mainly on the ground that the occurrence had
taken place on spur of the moment without any premeditation and the
same was on account of a dispute between the neighbours with regard
to straying cattle. Further, in the judgment of this Court in the case of
Madhavan and Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu2, this Court has reduced
the sentence of the accused who was
convicted for offence under Section
304(ii) of IPC, to five years without disturbing fine amount, mainly on
the ground that incident in question, happened all of a sudden without
any premeditation and it was a free fight between the members of two
families and both sides suffered injuries in the incident. Learned counsel
for the respondent-State opposing for modification of sentence, placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Pyare Mishra
v. Prem Shanker and Ors.3. In the aforesaid judgment, while reversing
the judgment of the High Court, this Court has convicted the accused
for offence under Section 304(i) of IPC and imposed the sentence of
eight years.
11. With regard to quantum of sentence, it all depends on
background facts of the case, antecedents of the accused, whether the
assault was premeditated and pre-planned or not, etc. In this case on
1 (2018) 9 SCC 704
2 (2017) 15 SCC 582
3 (2018) 14 SCC 614
GOVINDAN v. STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE [R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
520
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
hand, it is clear from the evidence on record that there was a dispute
with regard to pathway, which the complainant’s family members were
claiming from the land of the accused. In view of such interference, it
appears that the accused filed a Suit and obtained injunction orders from
Civil Court and in spite of the same, for violation of Court orders, the
family members of the complainant were put behind bars for 30 days.
The same is evident from the deposition of PW-1. The incident occurred
in front of the house of the accused and when the female family members
of the accused were assaulted, the appellant in retaliation seems to have
assaulted the family members of the complainant. Trial Court itself has
recorded that the de facto complainant’s family members are the
aggressors and they have tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the
accused from their land. The said findings recorded by the Trial Court,
became final. The same was not questioned either by the State or by the
complainant. It is also clearly held by the Trial Court that it was not a
premeditated or preplanned incident. It happened in a sudden quarrel on
the day of occurrence i.e. on 14.06.2010.
12. Having regard to such findings recorded by the Trial Court
itself, which have become final and further, in view of the judgments
relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellant, which support
the case of the appellant for modifying the
sentence, we deem it
appropriate that this is a fit case to modify the sentence, to meet the
ends of justice.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, while confirming the conviction for
offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC, we modify the sentence to two
years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default
to undergo three (03) months’ rigorous imprisonment.
14. The Appeal is allowed in part, to the extent as indicated above.
Bibhuti Bhushan Bose
Appeal partly allowed.