Holding

The offence committed by the appellants falls within Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, not Section 304.

Summary

Parusuraman and six others were charged with the murder of Jawahar, facing three sets of charges including murder, rioting and unlawful assembly. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the Tamil Nadu High Court convicted three of them (A1‑A3) under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34, sentencing them to five years' rigorous imprisonment. The appellants challenged this conviction before the Supreme Court, arguing that the evidence only showed an intention to cause grievous hurt, not death. The Court examined the nature of the thirteen external injuries, noting that most were on the lower limbs and arms, and concluded that the accused's common intention was to inflict grievous injuries. Consequently, the Court held that the appropriate charge was under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC, not Section 304. The conviction and sentence under Section 304 were set aside, and the appellants were convicted under Section 325 with a fine of Rs 7,000 each, payable to the deceased's parents, with default imprisonment for non‑payment. The appeal was disposed of with the modified conviction and fine.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate offence under the IPC for the accused's conduct – murder (Sec 302), culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Sec 304) or voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Sec 325) with common intention under Sec 34?

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 109, s. 147, s. 148, s. 149, s. 302, s. 304(Part I), s. 325, s. 34

Subjects

murderculpable homicidegrievous hurtcommon intentionSection 34 IPCconviction modificationfineSupreme Court

Judgment

PARUSURAMAN @ VELLADURAI AND OTHERS A

--
v.

-- STATE OF TAMIL NADU

SEPTEMBER 11, 1991

(KULDIP SINGH AND M.M. PUNCHHI; JJ.J B
i
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 304 Part I, 34-Conviction unde~a
ture of injuries caused-Intention of accused-Offence committed to be u/ss.
325, 34--Sentence modified-Fine collected from accused to be paid to
deceased's father/mother/sister. C
Three charges were framed against the appellants - Al to A7. A7 was
charged under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P!C. for instigating Al
to 6 to commit the murder. Al, A2, A4, AS and A3, A6 were tried under
Sections 147 and 148 I.P.C., respectively and the third charge under
section 302 read with S~tion 149, I.P.C. was against Al to A6 on the
allegations that Al, A2, A4 and AS armed with sticks, A3 armed with
D
aruval (bill-hook) and A6 armed with vel-stick (spear-stick), attacked the
deceased at about 8.30 A.M. on January 28, 1977 and caused him multiple
injuries, as a result of which he died on the same day.
All the accused persons were acquitted by the learned Trial Judge,
against which when appeal was rded, the High Court maintained the acquittal E
or A4 to A7 but reversed the findings in respect of Al to A3 and were con-
victed under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34, I.P.C. and were ·sen-
tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years, against tha~ this
appeal was filed by the appellants-Al to A3 via Special U3ve Petition.

Disposing the appeal, by modifying the sentence, this Court,
F
HELD: 1. Thirteen external injuries were round on the dead body of
the deceased. Out of these 11 were on lower legs and arms. The intention of
the appellants was to cause grievous hurt and as such the offence
committed by them comes within the parameters of Section 325, I.P.C.
Keeping in view the nature of injuries on the person of the deceased and
the facts and circumstances of this case the offence committed by the G
appellants comes within the mischief of Section 325 read with 34, I.P.C.
- --< and convicted them under Section 325, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C.
imposing the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by them, and
the sentence of Rs. 7,000 each as line, to be deposited before the Trial
Court, within four months, which be paid to the father/mother of deceased. H
1

,
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1991) SUPP. 1 S. C. R

A In the event of non payment of fine the appellants shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for five years. [3A, 3D-F]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
393of1979.
--
--=---

B From the Judgment and Order datea 26.4.1979 of the Tamil Nadu
High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 197 of 1978 and Crl. Revision Case No.
833of 1977.

U .R. Lalit and K.R. Choudhary for the Appellants.

C K.V. Venkataraman for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

KULDIP SINGH, J. Parusuraman @ Velladurai, Karuppaiah,
Nagasundaram and four others (hereinafter referred to as Al to A 7) were
D tried for the murder of one Jawahar. Three charges were framed against
. them. A7 was charged under Section 302 read with Section 109, I.P.C. for
. instigating Al to 6 to commit the murder. The second charge related to
rioting wherein Al, A2, A4, AS and A3, A6 were tried under Sections 147
and 148 I.P.C. respectively. The third charge under Section 302 read with
Section 149, I.P.C. was against Al to A6 on the allegations that Al, A2, A4
E. and A5 armed with sticks, A3 armed with aruval (bill-hook) and A6 armed
with vel-stick (spear-stick), attacked Jawahar at about 8.30 A.M. on
January 28, 1977 and caused him multiple injuries as a result of which he
died on the same day. All the accused persons were acquitted by the
learned Trial Judge. On appeal the High Court maintained the acquittal of
A4 to A 7 but reversed the findings in respect. of Al to A3. Believing the
p prosecution evidence, the High Court came to the conclusion that the
commission of offence by Al to A3 was proved. They were convicted under
Section 304 Part I read with Section 34, l.P.C. and were sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. This appeal by Al to A3 via
special leave petition is against the judgment of the High Court. While
granting special leave to appeal this Court by its order dated. August
G 10, 1979 allowed bail to the appellants.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We agree with the
High Court that the participation of the appellants in the occurrence which
resulted in the death of Jawahar has been proved beyond doubt. We are,
however, of the view that keeping in view the nature of injuries on the
H person of the deceased and the facts and circumstances of this case the
• l
PARUSURAMAN v. STATE [ KULDIP SINGH, J.) 3

offence committed by the appellants come within the mischief of Section A
_).-. 325 read with 34, l.P.C. Thirteen external injuries were found on the dead
body of Jawahar. Out of those 11 were on lower legs and arms. The High
Court while considering the nature of offence observed as under:-

;t
\
''These accused and their associates who be set themselves on
Jawahar could never have intertded to cause the death of B
"" Jawahar for, if such was their mtention, they could have cer-
tainly killed him especially after carrying him into the cholam
field and left him dead there instead of merely causing simple
.~ and grievous injuries to him. Even with reference to the aspect
whether the accused persons could have, intended to cause
such injuries as would be sufficient, in the ordinary course of c
nature, to cause death, we are not able to give a finding in
favour of the prosecution. Even according to Jawahar's state-
ment (Exhibit P-6) all that first accused had remarked was that
the attack on him was in retaliation for the injuries Jawahar
had caused on the first accused a few weeks earlier."
D
Agreeing with the above observations of the High Court we are of
-.(
the opinion that the intention of the appellants was to cause grievous hurt
and as such the offence committed by them comes within the parameters of
Section 325, I.P.C. We, therefore, set aside the conviction and sentence of
the appellants under Section 304 Part I, l.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C.
and instead convict them under Section 325, I.P.C. read with Section 34, E
I.P.C. We impose the sentence of imprisonment already undergone by the
appellants. We also impose the sentence of Rs. 7,000 each as fine on the
appellants. The appellants shall deposit Rs. 7,000 each before the Trial
-f. Court within four months from today. In the event of non payment of fine
-• the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. The
amount of Rs. 21,000 realised as fine from the appellants be paid to the ·F
father/mother of deceased Jawahar. In the event of none of them surviving
the amount shall be paid to Indra sister of deceased J awahar. The appeal is
disposed of in the above terms.

V.P.R Appeal disposed of.

--..:·