Holding

The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of appellant No.1 under Section 302 IPC, upheld the Section 324 IPC convictions of the other accused, and dismissed the appeal.

Summary

The case arose from a village procession during which a group of eleven accused formed an unlawful assembly and attacked several persons, resulting in the death of the deceased (Kannan) and injuries to others. The trial court convicted appellant No.1 (Murugan) under Section 302 IPC for murder and appellants No.8, 9 and 10 under Section 324 IPC for causing hurt, sentencing them to life imprisonment and one year rigorous imprisonment respectively. On appeal, the accused argued that Murugan’s single stab wound should attract Section 304 Part II, not murder, and that the convictions and sentences of the other accused were excessive or erroneous. The Supreme Court held that the eyewitness testimony was reliable, the intention to kill was evident from the surrounding circumstances, and a single injury does not negate the intention to murder. Consequently, the Court upheld the murder conviction, confirmed the Section 324 convictions, corrected a typographical error regarding the term of imprisonment, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the act of appellant No.1 constitutes murder under Section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II.
Whether the convictions of the other accused under Section 324 IPC are proper and the sentences imposed are appropriate.
Whether the alibi evidence presented by appellant No.2 was sufficient to overturn his conviction.
Whether the typographical error in the trial court’s judgment regarding the term of rigorous imprisonment should be corrected.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 299, s. 300, s. 302, s. 304 Part II, s. 324

Subjects

murderculpable homicideintentionunlawful assemblyeyewitness testimonySection 302 IPCSection 324 IPCappealsentencingalibitypographical error

Judgment

.~

A MURUGAN & ORS.
v.
STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU

DECEMBER 4, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 302 & 324:
c Murder-Testimony of eyewitnesses-Accused and accomplice
armed with weapons forming unlawful assembly attacked deceased
and others resulting in death ofdeceased and injury to others-Trial
Court found accused-appellant No.I guilty of committing murder
convicting him u!s. 302 /PC and sentencing him to life imprisonment
D andfound accused Nos. 8, 9& JO ofcommitting offence u!s. 324 and
sentencing them to one year rigorous imprisonment-Affirmed by High
Court-On appeal, Held: Prosecution witnesses not only described the
incident in detail but also identified the crime weapons which were
seized at the instance ofaccusedpersons-No cogent reasons advanced
E by accused to disprove trustworthiness of PWs.-Their evidence
believed by Courts below-Intention to commit murder ofthe deceased
and bodily injury to others by accused gatheredfrom the backdrop of
events and circumstances attending thereto-Infliction ofsingle injury
on the deceased by itselfis not a relevant factor to hold that assailant
had no intention to commit murder ofthe deceased-Hence, there exist
F no reason to differ with the order ofthe Courts below-Criminal trial-
Testimony ofprosecution witnesses-Trustworthiness.
According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, when a
procession was taken out by the people in the village for celebrating
G a festival, the accused persons who were 11 in number allegedly
formed an unlawful assembly with an object of committing murder
of PWS and others to take revenge from them, as earlier one of them,
the deceased, had instituted a criminal case against the accused
persons. They were carrying weapons. Accused No.1 and accused
H 852
MURUGANv. STATETHROUGHINSPECTOROF 853
t POLICE, TAMILNADU
No.3 had instigated others to commit murder of PW-5. Accused No.4 A
attacked PW-5 with a stick causing a fracture on his right hand. When
the deceased intervened, accused No.4 instructed accused No.2 to
kill him also. Consequently, accused No.2 caught hold of the hands
of the deceased, whereas accused No.6 caught hold of his shoulders,
and accused No. 7, appellant No.1 stabbed him with a knife on his B
chest and also caused an injury on PW-1, whereas accused No.8
attacked PW-1 with a cycle chain causing an injury on his head.
Appellant No.3- accused No.9 attacked PW-3 with a knife on his
nose and head whereas accused No.10 attacked PW-3 with a cycle
chain and caused injuries to him. A First Information Report was c
lodged immediately after the occurrence by the victims. Out of 11
accused, only accused No. 7 and 8 to 10 were convicted and sentenced
by the trial Court. Accused No. 7 was convicted for committing the
offence punishable u/s.302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life /
imprisonment; accused Nos. 8 tolO were convicted for committing 0
the offence punishable u/s. 324 IPC and they were sentenced to
undergo 1 year rigorous imprisonment. Appeal filed thereagainst was
dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present appeals.
Counsel for the accused-appellants contended that appellant
No.1 having inflicted only one blow with a knife on the deceased, E
the offence, if any, committed by him falls under Section 304 Part II
of the Indian Penal Code and not under Section 302 thereof; and that
all the other accused having caused only simple injuries, sentence
of one year's rigorous imprisonment is on the higher side.
F
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The nature of evidence of the eye-witnesses to the
occurrence whereupon strong reliance has been placed by both trial
Court as also the High Court in identical in nature.
[Para 6] (858-B] G
1.2. PWl, in his statement before the trial Court, not only
described the incident in great details but also identified the material
objects which were seized at the instance of the accused persons
being the weapons of offence. Evidences of PW-2 and other H
)

854 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 12 S.C.R.

A witnesses are also on the same vein. [Para 8] (858-H; 859-A]

1.3. Appellants had a motive. They came in a group. All of them
were armed. Both parties are related to each other. An occurrence
had taken place earlier giving rise to initiation of a criminal case by
B the deceased against the accused. Accused persons, with a view to A
take revenge, caused murder of the deceased and injuries on some
of the prosecution witnesses. The prosecution witnesses were injured
witnesses. [Para 9] (859-B]

1.4. No cogent argument has been advanced by counsel of the
C accused so as to enable him to hold that the prosecution witnesses
are not trustworthy. They have been believed by the courts below.
Nothing has been pointed out to this Court to differ with the findings
of the Courts below. [Para 10) [859-C)

2.1. Intention on the part of a person to commit murder must
D be gathered from the backdrop of events and the circumstances
attending thereto. [Para 11] [859-D)

Virsa Singh v. State ofPunjab, (1958) AIR SC 465, relied on.
2.2. The intention to cause the bodily injury, if proved, the rest
E of the enquiry would be purely objective and the only question is
whether as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
[Para 11) [860-C)

F Virsa Singh v. State ofPunjab, (1958) AIR SC 465, relied on.
2.3. Infliction of a single injury by itselfis not a relevant factor
to hold that the assailant had no intention to cause murder of the
deceased. What is important in a case of this nature is to consider
the entire circumstances to arrive at one conclusion or the other.
G When a group of people come with an intention to assault particular
person(s), with dangerous weapon, the same would attract to
principles laid down in the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab.
Prosecution witnesses testified in regard to their intention. Under
the circumstances, it cannot be said that appellant No.1 had no
H
MURUGAN v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE, 855
TAMILNADU

intention to cause death of the deceased. A
[Para 13 and 14) (861-B-D)
Virsa Singh v. State ofPunjab, (1958) AIR SC 465 and Anil v.
State ofHaryana, (2007) 7 SCALE 56, relied on.
3.1. Although, in this case, there was enough material to convict B
other appellants for commission of an offence under Section
302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the appellants, other than
the first appellant, have been only convicted under Section 324 of
the Indian Penal Code. As the State did not prefer any appeal
thereagainst, this Court is unable to alter the judgment of convictionc
and sentence. (Para 14) (861-D-E)
3.2. The trial judge appears to have committed more than one
mistake in his judgment. He while analysing the evidence ofDW-
-{ 1, who was examined on behalf of appellant No.2 (accused No.8) to
prove alibi on his part, although came to the conclusion that the said D
evidence was not acceptable, arrived at the finding that the said
accused has not committed the offence under Section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code. Evidently, a typographical error has crept in as
otherwise he could not have convicted him along with appellants
No.3 and 4 for commission of an offence under Section324 of the E
Indian Penal Code; that whereas in the beginning of the judgment,
he recorded the sentence imposed upon appellants No.2 to 4 to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years, in the operative part
of the judgment, he directed that they were sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for one year only. There is no other option
F
but to hold that later part of the judgment should be taken to be
correct. [Para 15] (861-F-H; 862-A]
3.3. So far as the purported plea of alibi of appellant No.2 is
concerned, a clear finding has been arrived at that DW-1 has
manipulated Exhibit D-3 just to help the said accused. The High Court
G
also agreed with the said view. There exists no reason to differ with
the views of the trial Court as also the High Court.
[Para 16] (862-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
1276 of 2005. H
>
856 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A From the Judgment and final Order dated 14. l 0.2004 of the High
Court of Madras in C.A. No. 115 of 1997.
Shekbar Naphade, T. Raja, Gopal Singh, Atulesh Kumar and Vishal
Jogdand for the Appellants.
B V. Kanakaraj, V.G. Pragasm, S. Joseph Aristotle and S. Prabu I.,

Ramasubramanian for the Respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment and
c order dated 14.10.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Madras High
Court, Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal No.115 of 1997 whereby and
whereunder the appeal preferred by the appellants herein against a
judgment of conviction and sentence dated I0.2.1997 passed by the
Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, )'

D Ramanathpuram convicting the accused No. 7 under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and
accused Nos.8, 9 and 10 under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code
and sentencing them to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment was
dismissed.
E 2. A quarrel ensued between the prosecution party and the accused
on 10.7.1973 in regard to drawing of water from a well. Accused were
said to have been bearing grudge towards the deceased as a criminal case
was instituted against them at Kumuthi Police Station. On 4.8.1993, at
about 6.15 pm, a procession of villagers was taken out for celebrating a ~
F festival known as "Mulaipari" festival. It started at village Keelamathupatti.
When the procession reached near the village known as Gandaru, with a
view to commit murder of PW-5, Nagarajan and other persons, the
accused persons who were 11 in number allegedly formed an unlawful
assembly with weapons like knife, cycle chains and sticks in their hands.
G Accused No. I, Subramanian, and accused No.3, Selvaraj, are said to
have instigated others to commit murder of PW-5 Nagarajan consequent y

whereupon accused No.4, Ramu, attacked him with a stick causing a
fracture on his right hand. When deceased Kannan tried to obstruct him
from doing so, accused No.4, Ramu, instructed accused No.2, Selvaraj,
H to kill him also. Consequently, accused No.2, Selvaraj, caught hold of
J
MURUGANv. STATETHROUGHINSPECTOROFPOLICE, 857
TAMILNADU[SINHA,J.]
the hands of Kannan, whereas accused No.6 caught hold of his shoulders. A
Taking advantage of the said situation, the appellant No.I herein (accused
No. 7 - Murugan) is said to have stabbed him with a knife on his chest.
Appellant No.l is said to have caused an injury on PW-1, Chithiraichamy,
,I
also with his knife, whereas accused No.8 attacked PW-1 with cycle chain
and caused an injury on his head thereby. Appellant No.3- Selvaraj, B
(accused No.9) is said to have attacked PW-3, Kathirvel, with a knife
on his nose and head whereas accused No.I 0, Boomi, attacked PW-3
with a cycle chain and caused injuries to him. PW-2, Murugesan was also
attacked with a stick.
3. A First Information Report was lodged immediately after the said c
occurrence. Out of 11 accused, however, only accused No. 7 and 8 to
10, were convicted and sentenced in the manner, as noticed hereinbefore,
--{
whereas others were acquitted. An appeal preferred thereagainst by the
appellants herein has been dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment.
D
4. Mr. Naphade, learned senior counsel, in support of the appeal,
would, inter alia, submit :
(1) Appellant No.I having inflicted only one blow with a knife on
the deceased, the offence, if any, committed by him falls under
Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code and not under E
Section 302 thereof.
(2) Appellant No.2 (accused No.8), having examined defence
witnesses to prove his plea of alibi, the learned Sessions Judge,
as also the High Court, committed a serious error in recording
F
a judgment of conviction against him.
In this connection our attention has been drawn to the
following purported findings of the learned Sessions Judge :
"The 8th accused has not committed the offence punishable
under Section 324 IPC". G
(3) All the other accused having caused only simple injuries,
sentence of one year's rigorous imprisonment is on the higher
side.
5. Mr. V. Kanakaraj, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of H
'>-

858 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment.
6. The prosecution, in support of its case, examined twenty one
witnesses.

The nature of evidence of the eye-witnesses to the occurrence
B whereupon strong reliance has been placed by both the learned Sessions
Judge as also the High Court being identical in nature, we would notice
the deposition of PW-I, Chithiraichamy, only. He spoke about the incident
which took place on 4th August, 1993. A complaint was made to him
by a woman named Malathi. She was reprimanded by him stating that
C there should not quarrel over drawing of water. She was sent back to
her home. Malathi was the daughter of the accused No.2. While the
deceased and the injured persons including the said PW- I had been
participating in the said procession, accused No.1 to 3 came and gave
an exhortation to cut and kill Nagrajan. Accu5ed No.4, Ramu, is said to
D have assaulted in his right forearm. The deceased Kannan intervened. He
asked them not to do so, whereupon accused No.2 gave an exhortation
to kill him, pursuant whereto accused No.6, Challaiah caught hold of both
his shoulders as a result whereof, he could not make a move. Appellant
No.1, Murugan, stabbed him on the left side of his chest. While PW-1
E asked the assailants not to do so, Appellant No. l attempted to stab him
also on his neck with a knife but as he turned his neck on the right side,
a laceration was caused on the right side of his neck. Accused No.8 also
attacked him with a cycle chain on his head.
7. He wanted to cause an injury to appellant No.2 (accused No.8)
F with a small knife but he was prevented from doing so by one Palaniammal
as a result whereof Palaniammal suffered a laceration in his right hand.
Appellant No.3, Sathiah (accused No.9) stabbed K.athirvelu in his hand
with a knife as a result whereof he received an injury. Accused No.10,
Boomi, assaulted Kathirvelu with a cycle chain on his head resulting in
G causing bleeding injury on his head and the right side nose. Accused No.11
Ramamoorthi (accused No.4) assaulted witness Murugasan with a stick
on his right upper arm whereupon all persons shouted whereafter the
accused ran away.
8. He, not only, thus, described the incident in great details but also
H
I
.(
MURUGAN v. STATE THROUGH INSPECTOR OF 859
POLICE, TAMIL NADU [SINHA, J.]
identified the material objects which were seized at the instance of the A
accused persons being the weapons of offence. Evidence of PW-2 and
other witnesses are also on the same vein.
9. Appellants had a motive. They came in a group. All of them were
armed. Both parties are related to each other. An occurrence had taken B
place which took place on 10th July, 1993 giving rise to initiation of a
criminal case. They, with a view to take revenge, caused murder of
Nagarajan and injuries on some of the prosecution witnesses. The
prosecution witnesses were injured witnesses. ·
10. No cogent argument has been advanced by Mr. Naphade so C
as to enable him to hold that of the said witnesses are not trustworthy.
They have been believed by t'1e courts below. Nothing has been pointed
·out to us as to why we should differ with the said findings.
11. Intention on the part of a person to commit murder must be
gathered from the backdrop of events and the circumstances attending D
thereto.
A similar question came up for consideration before this Court in
Virsa Singh v. State ofPunjab, (1958) AIR SC 465, wherein this Court,
upon a detailed analyses of the provisions of Sections 299 and 300 of E
the Indian Penal Code opined that in order to attract "thirdly" contained
Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, it must be established :
"To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts
before it can bring a case under Section 300 ''thirdly";
F
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is
present;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are
purely objective investigations.
G
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict
that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental
or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the
H
\

>
860 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A enquiry proceeds further and, ' r
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
B
with the intention of the offender."

Once the aforementioned factors are established, absence of any
knowledge that an act of that kind would likely to cause death become
immaterial. The intention to cause the bodily injury, if proved, the rest of
C the enquiry would be purely objective and the only question is whether
as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
12. The medical evidence, emanating from the deposition ofPW-
D 12, Dr., Meenakshisundararn, reveals: )-
"I found the following external injuries on the body. (1) A cut injury
measuring 1 x % x 3" on the left side chest. It was in the outer
aspect of the 6th left side rib bone between the middle of the collar
bone. On opening the wound, the wound has injured the
E intercostals muscles and blood vessels iii the middle rib bones. It
has punctured the left ventricle. The injury was slanting and upwards
and forwards. It has pierced the left ventricle. There was 1Yi litres
of colour changed blood in the thorasic cavity. The internal injuries
were as follows :
F There was no fracture of the head and rib bones. Heart was empty
and pale and was weighing 250 grams. The left ventricle was
punctured. The lungs was pale and was weighing 500 grams, and
was wet when pressed. Abdomen was normal stomach was
containing digested food. Liver weighed 1450 grams and was pale
G and was wet when pressed. Spleen was also wet when pressed
and weighed 165 grams, and was pale. Kidneys were pale and
moist on pressure. Intestines empty. Bladder empty. There was no
fracture on the pelvis. Hyoid bone was intact and the skull was
also intact. Skull membranes were intact. Brain was pale and
H weighed 1450 grams. There was no intra-cranial haemorrhage in
I
-<
MURUGANv. STATETHROUGHINSPECTOROF 861
POLI CE, TAMIL NADU [SINHA, J.]
the brain and was weighing 1250 grams. There was no fracture in A
the spinal chord."
13. Infliction of a single injury by itself is not a relevant factor to
hold that the assailant had no intention to cause murder of the deceased.
What is important in a case of this nature is to consider the entire B
circumstances to arrive at one conclusion or the other. When a group of
people come with an intention to assault particular person(s), with
dangerous weapon, the same would attract to principles laid down in Virsa
Singh (supra). Prosecution witnesses testified in regard to their intention.
Virsa Singh 's case has been followed by this Court in Anil v. State C
of Haryana, (2007) 7 SCALE 56.
14. We, therefore, are unable to accede to the submissions of Mr.
Naphade that appellant No. l had no intention to cause death of
Nagarajan.
D
Although, in this case, there was enough material to convict other
appellants for commission of an offence under Section 302/34 of the Indian
Penal Code, unfortunately, the appellants, other than the first appellant,
have been only convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
As the State did not prefer any appeal thereagainst, this Court is unable E
to alter the judgment of conviction and sentence.
15. The learned Trial Judge appears to have committed more than
one mistake in his judgment. He, while analysing the evidence ofDW-1,
who was examined on behalf of appellant No.2 (accused No.8) to prove
alibi on his part, although came to the conclusion that the said evidence F
was not acceptable, as indicated hereinbefore, arrived at the finding that
the 8th accused has not committed the offence under Section 324 of the
Indian Penal Code. Evidently, a typographical error has crept in as
otherwise he could not have convicted him along with appellants No.3
and 4 for commission of an offence under Section 324 of the Indian Penal G
--r Code. We may also notice that whereas in the beginning of the judgment,
he recorded the sentence imposed upon appellants No.2 to 4 to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for three years, in the operative part of the judgment,
he directed that they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment
H
862 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A for one year only. We have, however, no option but to hold that the later
part of the judgment should be taken to be correct.
16. So far as the purported plea of alibi of appellant No.2 is
concerned, a clear finding has been arrived at that DW-1 has manipulated
B Exhibit D-3 just to help the said accused. The High Court also agreed
with the said view.
We do not see any reason to differ with the views of the learned
Sessions Judge as also the High Court.
17. For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any merit in
c this appeal. It is dismissed accordingly.
S.K.S. Appeal dismissed.