MARIAPPANversusSTATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

                [2023] 15 S.C.R. 1074 : 2023 INSC 1034



                             CASE DETAILS

                              MARIAPPAN
                                      v.
              STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE
                   (Criminal Appeal No. 3598 of 2023)
                          NOVEMBER 24, 2023
          [VIKRAM NATH AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
                              HEADNOTES
      Issue for consideration: On the day of incident, heated arguments
took place between the two parties. During the quarrel, accused nos.1 and
2 stabbed victim multiple times with sooriknives, while accused no.3,
though armed with a spade handle, did not inflict injuries but facilitated in
the attack. The appellant-accused was convicted u/s. 302 IPC. Whether the
acts of the accused would come under Exception 4 to s.300 IPC or would
be an act of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable u/s. 302.
     Penal Code, 1860 – s. 302 and s.304 Part-I – Trial Court after
examining witnesses and material evidence, convicted appellant-
accused no.1 u/s. 302 IPC and acquitted accused nos. 2 and 3 from all
charges levelled against them – The High Court confirmed the order
of conviction u/s. 302 of the IPC – Propriety:
      Held: Right from the beginning i.e. the prosecution story as set up
in the FIR was that initially there was a heated discussion between the
parties and in a fit of anger the physical assault took place – Even the ocular
testimony is also to the same effect – Although on the same evidence the
Trial Court has acquitted two co-accused and convicted only the appellant
– It has also come in evidence that the appellant had caused only one injury
whereas other accused had caused multiple injuries – However, the Trial
Court acquitted the other two accused – The previous enmity between the
appellant and the deceased had been a contributory factor leading to the
verbal altercation but it was not the reason for the accused to carry out a
pre-planned fatal attack against the deceased – The appellant had acted
“suddenly”, in the heat of passion and without a pre-planned approach to
kill the deceased – Hence, it can be safely concluded from the evidence
                                     1074
    MARIAPPAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 1075


led in the present case that the appellant’s overt act of killing the deceased
happened during a fit of anger in the heat of a passionate verbal quarrel and
would fall under Exception 4 to s.300 IPC – The conviction u/s. 302 IPC is
converted to s. 304 Part-I IPC. [Paras 11, 12 and 13]
           LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
     Rampal Singh v. State of U.P, (2012) 8 SCC 289 : [2012] 7 SCR 160;
Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, (1989) 2 SCC 217 : [1989]
1 SCR 941 – relied on.
       OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
              ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.3598
of 2023.
     From the Judgment and Order dated 22.04.2016 of the High Court of
Judicature at Madras in CRLA No.151 of 2013.
      Appearances:
    T. Harish Kumar, Navneet Dugar, Subham Kothari, Ms. Preethi, G,
Advs. for the Appellant.
    Dr. Joseph Aristotle S., Ms. Shubhi Bhardwaj, Advs. for the
Respondent.
       JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                  ORDER

      VIKRAM NATH, J.
     1. This appeal assails the correctness of the final Judgment and Order
dated 22.04.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in
Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 whereby the High Court has dismissed the
appeal of the present appellant and confirmed the order of conviction under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 and awarding life sentence
passed on 05.10.2012 by the Trial Court.


1    IPC
1076           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 15 S.C.R.


       2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:
       2.1 The case involves the offence of culpable homicide committed by
the present appellant. The present appellant was accused no.1 before the Trial
Court in S.C.No.177 of 2010 on the file of the learned IV Additional District
& Session Judge, Erode District, at Bhavani. While the other two accused,
i.e., accused nos.2 and 3 were acquitted of all charges by the Trial Court.
      2.2 The case involves the murder of one Kolandaippam, wherein the
core motive was identified as a longstanding enmity over a land dispute
between the deceased and the three accused. Prior to the incident, there were
several confrontations and threats, notably 3½ years earlier on the disputed
land, and a subsequent altercation involving the deceased’s wife and Pappa,
the sister of the first accused. These events, including a police-compromised
complaint by the deceased’s wife, intensified the hostility.
      2.3 On 17th March 2009, around 6:00 p.m., at Koil Kaadu Chithanattu
Salai in Neringipettai Village, the deceased, along with P.Ws.2, 3, and 5,
was confronted by the accused. Heated arguments took place between the
two parties. During the quarrel, accused nos.1 and 2 stabbed Kolandaippam
multiple times with soori-knives, while accused no.3, though armed with
a spade handle, did not inflict injuries but facilitated in the attack. P.W.1,
the daughter of the deceased, witnessed this event. Following the attack,
the deceased was taken to the Government Hospital at Bhavani, where
Dr. (Mrs.) Janatha pronounced him dead and a complaint was lodged at
the Ammapettai Police Station, leading to the registration of a case under
Sections 302 and 324 of IPC.
      2.4 The investigation, led initially by Subbiah (P.W.13) and later
by A. Rajendran (P.W.14), involved meticulous collection of evidence.
This included bloodstained earth from the crime scene, preparation of an
Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch, and the recovery of the murder
weapons. The autopsy conducted by Dr. Poornachandrika (P.W.8) revealed
multiple stab wounds as the cause of death, particularly noting a fatal injury
to the heart.
      2.5 Significant evidence contributing to the appellant’s guilt includes
the recovery of the murder weapon (a soori-knife) and bloodstained clothes
following his voluntary confession. Additionally, the testimonies of the
  MARIAPPAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 1077
                 [VIKRAM NATH, J.]

eyewitnesses, especially P.W.1, and the forensic evidence linking the blood
group from the material objects to the deceased, played a crucial role. Despite
some inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts, the overwhelming evidence
pointed towards the accused no.1’s direct involvement in the assault.
     2.6 Upon filing of charge sheet by the respondent police, a session case
was registered before the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhavani in S.C.No.177
of2010. The Trial Court taking cognizance of the offence, framed two
charges. Charge against the accused Nos.1 to 3 was under Section 302 read
with Section 34 IPC. Charge was against the accused no.3 under Section
307 IPC.
      2.7 The trial involved the examination of 14 witnesses, and the
presentation of 18 documents and 9 material objects. While the accused
nos.2 and 3 were acquitted due to lack of conclusive evidence against them,
the accused no.1, i.e., the appellant herein was found guilty based on the
weight of the testimonies and other documentary and material evidence.
According to the Trial Court there was compelling evidence, particularly
the recovery of the murder weapon and the consistency of the eyewitness
testimonies, which duly proved the conviction of the appellant.
      3. As already narrated earlier, by judgment dated 05.10.2012, the Trial
Court convicted the accused no.1, i.e., the appellant herein under Section
302 IPC and acquitted accused Nos.2 and 3 from all the charges levelled
against them. The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for one year for the said offence.
      4. The appellant filed Criminal Appeal No.151 of 2013 before the High
Court at Madras. Vide order dt. 22.04.2016, the High Court upheld the Trial
Court’s order and dismissed the appeal of the appellant concluding that the
act of the appellant would squarely fall within the third limb of Section 300
IPC and the same would not fall under any of the Exception to Section 300
IPC and hence he is liable to be punished under Section 302 of IPC.
     5. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the aforementioned
order of the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 151 of 2013 praying to set
aside the order of conviction on several grounds, inter alia, that the Trial
Court held that accused no.1, all of a sudden, while the wordy quarrel
1078           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 15 S.C.R.


was going on, had stabbed the deceased in front of his daughter, son, his
relatives and hence his act should come under Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC and would be guilty of Section 304 part 1 IPC and should be sentenced
accordingly.
     6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State
supported the judgments and orders passed by the Trial Court and the High
Court, opposing the arguments of the appellant.
      7. Having heard the arguments of both the parties, we find that the
evidence presented before the Trial Court and the facts and circumstances of
the case clearly establish beyond reasonable doubt that the wound caused by
the appellant was the reason for the death of the deceased. The High Court
also reaffirmed this observation that the injuries with soori-knife caused by
the appellant were the reason for the death of the deceased.
      8. Hence the only question that remains for consideration before us is
whether the act of the accused is culpable homicide amounting to murder
or not. In other words, the question is whether the acts of the accused would
come under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC or would be an act of culpable
homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302.
      9. This Court in Rampal Singh v. State of U.P.2, while altering the
offence under Section 302 to Section 304 Part 1 of IPC, has elaborately
discussed the distinction between culpable homicide amounting to murder
and culpable homicide not amounting to murder. What is held is that
classification would be a matter of fact depending upon the evidence led in
the trial. Broadly speaking, the factors to be considered are enumerated in
paragraph 25 thereof. The same is been reproduced below:
       “25. As we have already discussed, classification of an offence into
       either part of Section 304 is primarily a matter of fact. This would have
       to be decided with reference to the nature of the offence, intention of the
       offender, weapon used, the place and nature of the injuries, existence of
       premeditated mind, the persons participating in the commission of the
       crime and to some extent the motive for commission of the crime. The
       evidence led by the parties with reference to all these circumstances


2   (2012) 8 SCC 289
    MARIAPPAN v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE 1079
                   [VIKRAM NATH, J.]

      greatly helps the court in coming to a final conclusion as to under
      which penal provision of the Code the accused is liable to be punished.
      This can also be decided from another point of view i.e. by applying
      the “principle of exclusion”. This principle could be applied while
      taking recourse to a two-stage process of determination. Firstly, the
      Court may record a preliminary finding if the accused had committed
      an offence punishable under the substantive provisions of Section
      302 of the Code, that is, “culpable homicide amounting to murder”.
      Then secondly, it may proceed to examine if the case fell in any of the
      Exceptions detailed in Section 300 of the Code. This would doubly
      ensure that the conclusion arrived at by the court is correct on facts
      and sustainable in law. We are stating such a proposition to indicate
      that such a determination would better serve the ends of criminal
      justice delivery. This is more so because presumption of innocence
      and right to fair trial are the essence of our criminal jurisprudence and
      are accepted as rights of the accused.”
    10. It would also be apt here to refer to the judgement of Surinder
Kumar Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh3, wherein this Court had laid
down the grounds to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC:
      “7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied,
      namely, (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation;
      (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant
      had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The
      cause of the quarrel is not relevant no is it relevant who offered the
      provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused
      during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important
      is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated
      and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the
      offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a
      cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of
      the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries,
      one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this
      exception provided he has not acted cruelly.”


3    (1989) 2 SCC 217
1080           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2023] 15 S.C.R.


      11. In the present case, while looking at the facts and circumstances of
the case, it can be seen that the appellant had suddenly stabbed the deceased
during a heated verbal argument with him and not during a pre-planned
attack which was carried out with the sole intention of causing the death of
the deceased. The previous enmity between the appellant and the deceased
had been a contributory factor leading to the verbal altercation but it was
not the reason for the accused to carry out a pre-planned fatal attack against
the deceased. The appellant had acted “suddenly”, in the heat of passion
and without a pre-planned approach to kill the deceased.
      12. Right from the beginning i.e. he prosecution story as set up in the
FIR was that initially there was a heated discussion between the parties and
in a fit of anger the physical assault took place. Even the ocular testimony
is also to the same effect. Although on the same evidence the Trial Court
has acquitted two co-accused and convicted only the appellant. It has also
come in evidence that the appellant had caused only one injury whereas other
accused had caused multiple injuries. However, the Trial Court acquitted
the other two accused.
     13. Hence, it can be safely concluded from the evidence led in the
present case that the appellant’s overt act of killing the deceased happened
during a fit of anger in the heat of a passionate verbal quarrel and would fall
under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC. Moreover, the clear intent needed to
prove culpable homicide amounting to murder has also not been established
by the prosecution.
       14. The appeal is partly allowed.
     15. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is Converted to Section
304 Part-I with sentence of 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of
Rs. 50,000/-, to be paid to the victim’s family.


Headnotes prepared by:                                     Appeal partly allowed.
Ankit Gyan