Holding

The prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt; the offence is culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304 Part II IPC, and the related witnesses' testimony is admissible and credible.

Summary

The case arose from a dispute over mango trees that escalated into a violent altercation on 1 June 1991, during which the accused brothers assaulted several persons, causing the death of the deceased Murugesan and injuries to three eye‑witnesses who were relatives of the deceased. The trial court convicted both accused under sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 427 and 448 IPC; the Madras High Court acquitted them, holding that the witnesses were interested and that there were delays and inconsistencies in their statements. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the relationship of witnesses to the victim does not per se affect their credibility and that minor discrepancies do not defeat the prosecution’s case. The Court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused caused the injuries and death, but concluded that the facts did not constitute murder under s.302 IPC as there was no intention to kill and no deadly weapon was used. Accordingly, the convictions were modified to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under s.304 Part II IPC, with a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment. The appeal was partly allowed, setting aside the High Court’s acquittal.

Issues considered

The credibility of witnesses who are relatives of the deceased and whether their testimony can be relied upon.
Whether minor discrepancies in witness statements warrant rejection of their evidence.
Whether the offence committed amounts to murder under section 302 IPC or culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304 Part II IPC.
The scope of appellate review of the trial court’s appreciation of evidence.

Legislation cited

Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 302, s. 304(Part II), s. 307, s. 323, s. 324, s. 341, s. 425?, s. 427, s. 448

Subjects

murderculpable homicidewitness credibilityrelated witnessesIndian Penal Codesection 302section 304appellate reviewevidence discrepancies

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 405

STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE A
v.
SARAVANAN & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 832 of 2002)
OCTOBER 14, 2008
B
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDKAM
.J_ SHARMA, JJ.]
'

Penal Cod, 1860 - s. 304 .(Part II) - Assault by two ac-
cused - resulting in death of one and injuries to eye-witnesses c
- Eye-witnesses related to the deceased - Conviction by trial
court of accused No. 1 ulss. 302, 307, 427 and 448 /PC -
Accused No. 2 convicted u/ss. 302134, 307134, 323, 324, 427
and 448 /PC -Acquittal of both the accused of all the charges
by High court - On appeal, held: Prosecution proved its case
D
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assaulted the eye-
~ witnesses and the deceased- Minor discrepancies in the state-
ment of the witnesses and the fact that witnesses were related
would not affect prosecution case - However, in view of the
fact of the case, it is not a case punishable u/s. 302 - Hence,
conviction of both the accused altered to one uls.304 (Part II). E

Evidence - Testimony of related witness - Evidentiary
value of - Held: Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility

.."" ~
of a witness - Jn case of plea of interestedness of such witness,
the court is required to analyse the credibility of such witness.
Respondents-accused were prosecuted for having
F

caused cjeath of one person and for causing injuries to
others. Trial Court convicted accused No. 1 u/ss. 302, 307,
427, 448 IPC. Accused No. 2 was convicted u/ss. 302/34,
427, 448, 307/34, 323 and 324 IPC. Conviction was chal- G
lenged on the grounds interalia that the evidence of eye-
k' witnesses (viz. PWs. 1,2,3,4 and 5 could not be relied upon
as they were closely related to the deceased and thus in-
terested. High Court allowed the appeal of the accused
405 H
406 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A on the grounds interalia that there was delay in sending 1-~
formal FIR to the Court; that there was no clear evidence
to prove as to who committed the crime; that there were
discrepancies and improvements in the statement of wit-
nesses. Hence the present appeal.
B Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Relationship is not a factor to affect the ..\.-
,
credibility of a witness, for the mere reason that an eye-
witness can be said to be an interested witness, his/her
c testimony need not be rejected. Most of the times, eyewit-
. nesses happen to be family members or close associates
because unless a crime is committed in a public place,
strangers are not likely to be present at the time of occur-
rence. It is more often than not that a relation would not
conceal actual culprit and make allegation against an in-
0
nocent person. Whenever any plea is taken by the ac-
cused persons about the interestedness of witnesses, -+--
materials have to be placed in that regard. In such cases,
the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse
evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible.
E [Para 8] [413-8-E]
Dalip Singh v. .State of Punjab AIR 1953 SC 364; Masalti
v. State of U.P., 1964 (8) SCR 133; State of Rajasthan v. Teja
Ram 1999 (3) SCC 507; Amzad Ali v. State of Assam 2003
F (6) sec 270 - relied on. 1 _....

2. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, mi- ? ~
nor discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the
core of the prosecution case, ought not to prompt the
court to reject evidence in its entirety. Further, on the gen-
G eral tenor of the evidence given by the witness, the trial
court upon appreciation of evidence forms an opinion
about the credibility thereof, in the normal circumstances ~.
the appellate court would not be justified to review it once
again without justifiable reasons. It is the totality of the
H situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. 407
SARAVANAN & ANR.
-I
some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the A
core of the prosecution case, even if present, that itself
would not prompt the court to reject the evidence on mi-
nor variations and discrepancies. [Para 11] [416-E-G]
State of UP v. MK. Anthony 1985 (1) SCC 505 - relied
on. B
-+ 3. In the instant case all the injured persons have cat-
egorically stated not only the manner in which the inci-
dent on the day of occurrence took place but also the in-
ci.dent which occurred on the previous week. The wit- c
nesses have been consistent. The deposition of the wit-
nesses, as per record, indicates that all the injuries re-
ceived by them were caused during the incident by ac-
cused persons. The injured witnesses are eye witnesses
and therefore there is no reason to rope in some other
D
persons other than the actual culprits. The said evidence
could not be shaken and when the factual scenario is
examined in the light of the legal principles, the High Court
was not justified in coming to the conclusion that it was
not proved from the evidence available on record as to
who committed the aforesaid crime. The injuries were E
caused by the accused persons not only on the person
of eye witnesses but also on the person of deceased
which resulted in his death and the prosecution has been
able to prove its case beyond any reasonable doubt.
·~
'; [Paras 12 and 13] [416-H; 417-F-G] F

4. The present case, however, cannot be said to be a
case falling under the provisions of Section 302 IPC. It
appears from the evidence on record and the manner in
which the occurrence had taken place that there was
G
some altercation between the parties. The accused per-
)....>'
sons were also not armed with any deadly weapon. When
they went to the house of PW 1 and damaged the cook-
ing utensils there was no intention of killing. When PW 1
being followed by P.Ws 2, 3, the deceased and PW 5 came
H
408 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. 't

')---
A to'. the house and' there was some altercation and ex-
change of hot words, during that stage the accused gave.
injuries tO PW 1, 2, 3 and also to the deceased. The said
injuries were also caused by stick. In the said crusade
injuries were also inflicted on the person of A1. Both the
B accused persons are therefore,· convicted under Section
304 Part II instead of 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. [Para +--
14] [417-H; 418-A-D]
'I

Dharam and Ors.. v. State of Haryana JT 2007(1) SC 299
c - relied on.
CASE .LAW REFERENCE
AIR 1953 SC 364 Relied on. Para 9
1964 (8) SCR 133 Relied on. Para 9
D
1999 (3 > sec 507 Relied on. Para 10
2003 (6) sec 210 Relied on. Para 10
1985 (1 > sec 505 Relied on. Para 11
JT 2007(1) SC 299 Relied on. Para 14
E
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 832 of 2002
From the final Judgment and Order dated 7.3.2001 of the
· High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 670 of 1992 ' ~

F ~
~-
S. Thananjayan and V.G. Pragasam for the Appellant.
V.J. Francis, A. Radha Krishnan and Anupam Mishra for
the Respondents.

G The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. By this judgment ~
and order, we propose to dispose of the appeal filed against
the judgment and .order of the Division Bench of the High Court
of Madras, whereby the Division Bench set aside the judgment
H and order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Vellore
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. 409
SARAVANAN & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.] -

--{
arid acquitted both the accus;d respondents of all the charges A
framed against them.
2. However, before we deal with the contentions raised
- before us in the appeal. it would be necessary to state the facts
of the case leading to filing of the present appeal, which are as
B
under:
The father Of the accused respondents is the brother of
+ P.W. 1 and P.W. 6. They inherited certain property which was
again divided amongst them. There were two m~ngo trees on
~
one acre of land at Kanililuppai village which belonged to P.W. c
6. The father of accused had no share in that property. Accord-
ing to the measurement done both the trees of mango fell within
the land of P.W.6. One of the trees had become dead tree. How-
ever, before the said measurement could take place the father
of the accused respondents sold that tree to one Shanmugam
D
for a sum of Rs. 1,000/-.
The occurrence, which gives rise to the present appeal
+- occurred on 01.06.1991. One week prior to the occurrence,
P.Ws. 1, 2, 5 and Murugasan (hereinafter referred to as 'the
deceased') were plucking mango fruits from the aforesaid tree E
when Janaki, who _is mother of the accused respondents, came
there and collected some mangoes. However P. W. 6 did not
allow Janaki to carry the mangoes, so collected by her. The
same resulted in a wordy quarrel between P.Ws. 1, 2, the de-
ceased and Janaki. Janaki beat the accused with a plate. An- ....
~
- . \
noyed over that, P. W. 1 attacked Janaki with a stick.
i

On the evening of 01.06.1991, P.Ws 1, 2, 3 along with
deceased and P.W. 5 went to the house of one Kanniammal for
weaving work, which is located nine houses away from the
house of P.W. 1. At that time, P.W. 4 was cooking in the house. _G
Around 6.45 p.m., accused/respondent 1 and 2 (for short 'A 1'
j.....-
and 'A2' respectively) trespassed into the house of P.W. 1 and
damaged the cooking utensils. Frightened by that act of the
accused, P.W. 4 informed about this incident to P.Ws. 1 to 3.
From the place of weaving, P.W. 1 went back to his house and H
410 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A asked A 1 and A2 as to why they damaged the pots. P.Ws. 2, 3,
the deceased and P.W. 5 followed P.W. 1 to the house. At that )--
stage, A 1, with M.O. 1 attacked on the right side head, left up-
per arm and left thigh of P.W. 1, who was caught and hold tightly
by A2. At the time when P.W. 2 intervened, A2 with· M.O. 2 at-
B tacked upon him on his head; his right shoulder and right leg
knee. The deceased, Murugesan, intervened and A 1 stating that
he must die and with that, attacked on the back side of his head
with M.O. 1. The brain came out. Deceased was bleeding -t
through his nose and mouth. Struck by the aforesaid blow the
c deceased fell down, upon which A1 and A2 started kicking the !...;
deceased. P.W. 3 intervened to preventA1 from further assault-
ing deceased. A2, with M.O. 3 - bamboo stick attacked P.W. 3
on his left forehead and shoulder, resulting in the left eye of P.W.
3 getting congested. Thereafter, A 1 and A2 ran away from the
D scene of occurrence.
P.Ws 1, 2 and the deceased were taken by P.W. 5 and
two others in a bullock cart to the Government Hospital atArani.
The Medical Officer, who was later on examined as P.W. 10,
examined P.W. 1 and found a number of injuries on his person.
E He also examined P.W. 2 and found a number of injuries on his
person as well. P.W. 3 was also examined in the Government
Hospital and on such examination a number of injuries were
also found on his person. All the injuries found on P.Ws 1, 2 and
3 were recorded in the accident register, which is marked as
F Exhibit P.12. Intimation, Exhibit P.13, regarding the admission
of P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and the deceased in the Hospital was also
sent to police station at Arani.
On receipt of the aforesaid intimation, Exhibit P.13, from
the Government Hospital the police started investigation and
G examined P.W. 1 and recorded a statement from him, which is
marked in this case as Exhibit P.1. The same stood registered
in crime No. 185/91 for offences punishable under Sections 341,
324, 325 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "--'
'IPC'). Exhibit P. 26 is the F.l.R. During investigation the investi-
H gating officer examined number of witnesses and recorded their
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. 411
SARAVANAN & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

--f statements and also went to the scene of occurrence from where A
he recovered M.Os. 7 and 8. As the condition of the deceased
was serious, he was referred to the Government Hospital at
Vellor and on 9.45 p.m. on 01.06.1991, he was admitted in the
Government Hospital at Vellor. Deceased succumbed to the
injuries sustained by him at 3.50 a.m. on 02.06.1991. On re- s
ceipt of the aforesaid death intimation, the investigation officer,
--+- P.W. 15 altered the section of offence to Section 302 IPC. On
conclusion of the enquiry, he submitted a charge sheet" as

- against both the accused persons.
During trial P.W.1, who is father of P.W. 2, P.W. 5 and de- C
ceased, as also P.W. 2 to 17 were examined as witnesses. On
conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court found both the ac-
cused guilty of the offences charged against them. A 1 was sen-
tenced to undergo imprisonment for the offence punishable un-
der section 302 IPC and A2 was sentenced to undergo life im- D
prisonment for the offence punishable under section 302 read
~ with Section 34 IPC. They were also sentenced to imprison-
ment for six months each under Section 427 and Section 448
IPC. A 1 was also held guilty under Section 307 IPC and A2
under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to E
undergo imprisonment for three years. They were also directed
to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default thereof both the ac-
cused were directed to undergo imprisonment for one year
additionally. A2, in addition to the abovesaid, was also held guilty
under Section 323 and Section 324 IPC and sentenced to un- F
--\ dergo imprisonment for six months and one year respectively.
All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
=1 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order
passed by the trial court an appeal was filed by both the ac-
___,[ cused before the High Court of Madras, which was heard by a G
/'
Division Bench of the said Court. The High Court allowed the
...,,, appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the trial court
and acquitted both the accused of all the charges.

4. The present appeal was filed by the State of Tamil Nacfu H
412 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A being aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the High )-
Court of Madras. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties, who drew our attention to entire evidence existing on
record. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both
the parties and having looked into various facts and evidences
B available on record, we propose to dispose of this appeal by
this Judgment.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant brought to -+--
our notice the evidence of all the witnesses as also all other
relevant documents inciuding the first information report in sup-
C port of his contentions that the order of acquittal passed by the
learned Division Bench of the High Court cannot be upheld and
requires to be set asise. Counsel for the respondents, on the
other hand, submitted that the order of acquittal does not call
for any interference for it takes notice of all the relevant facts
D and factors, and therefore, the appeal is required to be dis-
missed.
6. We have carefully gone through the Judgment passed +
by the Division Bench of the High Court. A bare perusal of the
said judgment would ·indicate that the order of acquittal was
E mainly based on the fact that there was a delay in sending Ex-
hibit P.26, the formal F.l.R. to the court. The Division Bench also
held that there was r.o clear evidence to prove and establish
that it is the accused who caused injuries on the witnesses as
well as the deceased. The Division Bench was also of the view
F that till the deceased died and case was converted into Sec-
tion 302 IPC, the accused persons were not identified. It was )-- ~"'
also held by the Division Bench that there was no clear evi-
dence to prove as to who has caused injuries on the witnesses
as weir as on the deceased. In view of the aforesaid findings,
G the Division Bench has set aside the order of conviction passed
by the trial court.
7. We carefully scrutinized and analyzed the evidence ad- ~
duced by the parties. There is no denial and dispute to the fact
th.at the deceased died due to the injuries sustained by him.
H
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. 413
SARAVANAN & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

There is also no dispute with regard to the fact that P.Ws 1, 2 A
and 3 received their injuries during the incident and they are the
eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have specifically stated
in their deposition as to how the occurrence had taken place.
8. Before the High Court the stand taken by the respon-
dents was that the evidence of P.W. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 should not 8
~-
have been relied upon as they were closely related to the de-
ceased and were interested witnesses. The law is long settled
that relationship is not a factor to affect the credibility of a wit-
ness, for the mere reason that an eyewitness can be said to be
an interested witness, his/her testimony need not be rejected. c
Most of the times, eyewitnesses happen to be family members
or close associates because unless a.crime is committed in a
public place, strangers are not likely to be present at the time of
occurrence. It is more often than not that a relation would not
conceal actual culprit and make allegation against an innocent D
person. Whenever any plea is taken by the accused persons
+ about the interestedness of witnesses, materials have to be
placed in that regard. In such cases, the Court has to adopt a
careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whethe·r it is
cogent and credible. E
9. The theory that the witnesses being close relatives and
consequently being partisan witnesses, should not be relied
upon, was repelled by this Court in the year 1953 itself in the

••
~'-,
case of Oalip Singh V. State of Punjab [AIR 1953 SC 364],
wherein it was held as under:
"26. A witness is normally to be considered independent
F

unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to
be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has
cause, such as enm.ity against the accused, to wish t~
G
implicate him falsely. Ordinarily, a close relative would be
~ the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an .
innocent person. It is true, when_ feelings run high and there
is personal cause for enmity, that there is a tendency to
drag in an innocent person against whom a witness has
H
~

414 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A a grudge along with the guilty, but foundation must be laid )-
for such a criticism and the mere fact of relationship far
from being a foundation is often a sure guarantee of truth.
However, we are not attempting any sweeping .--
.._
generalisation. Each case must be judged on its own facts. I-
B Our observations are only made to combat what is so 'i
often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of
prudence. There is no such general rule. Each case must -~
be limited to and be governed by its own facts."
r

A similar view was taken in a later decision of this Court in '-

c Masalti v. State of U.P., [(1964) 8 SCR 133] wherein this Court I-
observed as follows: r
"But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that
evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on r
the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested
D r
witnesses ............. The mechanical rejection of such l-
evidence on the sole ground that it is partisan would
invariably lead to failure of justice. No hard and fast rule +
can be laid down as to how much evidence should be
appreciated. Judicial approach has to be cautions in
E dealing with such evidence; but the plea that such evidence \.
should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be
accepted as correct."
~
10. The principles laid down in the above said cases have ~

·'
- F been reiterated by this Court time and again. In State of ,L
Rajasthan v. Teja Ram, [(1999) 3 SCC 507] this Court further ,..,~ r-I
stated that over-insistence on witnesses having no relation with
the victims often results in criminal justice going awry. The ob-
servations as enumerated in Para 20 are as follows:
G "The over-insistence on witnesses having no relation with
the victims often results in criminal justice going awry. When
any incident happens in a dwelling house, the most natural '-1
witnesses would be the inmates of that house. It is
unpragmatic to ignore such natural witnesses and insist
H on outsiders who would not have even seen anything. If
~
, , . .<
'>),;;;
~
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. 415
SARAVANAN & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

·-( the court has discerned from the evidence or even from A
the investigation records that some other independent
person has witnessed any event connecting the incident
in question, then there is a justification for making adverse
comments against non-examination of such a person as
a prosecution witness. Other.vise, merely on surmises the B
court should not castigate the prosecution for not
examining other persons of the locality as prosecution
+ witnesses. The prosecution can be expected to examine
only those who have witnessed the events and not those
who have not seen it though the neighbourhood may be c
replete with other residents also."
Moreover, in Amzad Ali v. State of Assam, [(2003) 6 SCC
270], wherein one of was a member (Dr. Arijit Pasayat) this Court
stated in clear terms that there is no rule of any presumption
that the evidence of a related witness will always be an inter- D
ested one or that such witness wiil have only a hostile attitude
towards the accused facing trial.
·+
11. The High Court also held that as there were some dis-
crepancies and improvements in the statement of the witnesses,
their evidence should not be relied upon. In State of U.P v. M.K. E
Anthony, [(1985) 1 SCC 505] this Court has laid down the ap-
preach which should be followed by the Court in such cases:
"10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the
approach must be whether the evidence of the witness F
-2~~
read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that
--\'
' impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the
court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping
in view the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed
out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find
G
out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence
given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of
~ ... the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief.
Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the
core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking
H
416 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A sentences torn out of context here or there from the
evidence, attaching importance to some technical error
committed by the investigating officer not going to the root
of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the
- '
evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness '··
8 gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion
about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness,
the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to
attach due weight to the appreciation of evidence by the +-
trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and
·-,
c formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence
on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter
of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may
differ in some details unrelated to the main incident
because power of observation, retention and reproduction
differ with individuals. Cross-examination is an unequal
D
duel between a rustic and refined lawyer ................... "
Even otherwise, it has been said time and again by this + ,
Court that while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor
discrepancies on trivial matters without affecting the core of the
E prosecution case, ought not to prompt the court to reject evi-
dence in its entirety. Further, on the general tenor of the evi-
dence given by the witness, the trial court upon appreciation of
evidence forms an opinion about the credibility thereof, in the
normal circumstances the appellate court would not be justified I
F to review it once again without justifiable reasons. It is the total- •
_, _,,,r_
ity of the situation, which has to be taken note of. Difference in
some minor detail, which does not otherwise affect the core of
)- ~
r

the prosecution case, even if present, that itself would not prompt
the court to reject the evidence on minor variations and dis-
G crepancies.
12. In the present case all the injured persons have cat-
egorically stated not only the manner in which the incident on
the day of occurrence took place but also the incident which
occurred on the previous week. It has come in evidence that
H Janaki was not allowed to carry the mangoes collected by her
STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE v. 417
SARAVANAN & ANR. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

by PW 6, which resulted in a wordy quarrel between P.Ws. 1, 2, A
the deceased and Janaki, consequent to which Janaki beat the
deceased with a plate and annoyed by the said fact PW 1 at-
tacked Janaki with a stick. The said incident establishes that
there was a quarrel going on between the parties consisting of
P.Ws 1, 2, 3, the deceased and others as against the accused B
person and their mother- Janaki. The witnesses have been con-

.. -1;- sistent with regard to the fact that when P.Ws 1, 2, 3 along with
deceased and P.W. 5 went to the house of one Kanniammal for
weaving work, which is situated nine houses away from the
house of PW 1 and PW 4 was cooking in the house, at that c
time, A 1 and A2 trespassed into the house of PW 1 and dam-
aged the cooking utensils. Being so informed by PW 4 to P.Ws
1 to 3, PW 1 came to his house followed by P.Ws 2 and 3, the
deceased and PW 5 and around the same time A 1 attacked
the deceased as also the PW 1 being so caught and held by
D
A2. The deposition of the witnesses, as per record, indicates
-+ that all the injuries received by them were caused during the
incident by accused persons. The injured witnesses are eye
witnesses and therefore there is no reason to rope in some
other persons other than the actual culprits. The said evidence
could not be shaken and when we examine the factual scenario E
in the light of the above discussed legal principles we find that
the High Court was notjustified in coming to the conclusion that
it was not proved from the evidence available on record as to
.... who committed the aforesaid crime .
·...+... F
' 13. Therefore, we have no hesitation in our mind to come
to the conclusion that the injuries were caused by the accused
persons not only on the person of eye witnesses but also on the
person of deceased which resulted in his death and the pros-
ecution has been able to prove its case beyond any reason-
G
able doubt.
~
14. Having come to the aforesaid conclusion, another
question that comes up for our consideration is whether it would
be a case punishable under section 302 IPC. It appears from
the evidence on record and the manner in which the occurrence H
418 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A had taken place that there was some altercation between the
}-
,
parties. The accused persons were also not armed with any j._

deadly weapon, and therefore, it could be deduced that when
they went to the house of PW 1 and damaged the cooking uten-
sils there was no intention of killing. Accuseci could kill PW 4 at ~
B that stage, which they did not. Rather when PW 1 being fol-
lowed by P.Ws 2, 3, the deceased and PW 5 came to the house
and there was some altercation and exchange of hot words, +
during that stage the accused gave injuries to PW 1, 2, 3 and ....,_
/

also to the deceased. The said injuries were also caused by .--
c stick. In the said crusade injuries were also inflicted on the per-
son of A 1. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the present
case cannot be said to be a case falling under the provisions of
Section 302 IPC. Both the accused persons are therefore, con-
victed under Section 304 Part II instead of 302 IPC and sen-
D tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven
years. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion, we are forti-
tied by a decision of this Court in Dharam & Ors. v. State of +
Haryana [JT 2007(1) SC 299], wherein also under similar cir-
cumstances, this Court held that the offence committed by the
E accused persons would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part
II. In that case_ the deceased and the accused happened to be
blood relations and having regard to the peculiar circumstances
of the case in which the incident took place, fatal injury inflicted
on the head of the deceased, which was found to be sufficient
/

F in the ordinary course of nature to cause death could not be .;- '
"
held as an injury intended by the accused persons to cause
death or an injury likely to cause death of deceased. The facts,
therefore, are almost similar to case in hand and the ratio is
fully applicable to the facts of this case.
G 15. The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment of High
Court is set aside but with abovesaid modification. Both the ~·
accused are directed to surrender forthwith to serve the remain-
ing sentence.
K.K.T. Appeal partly allowed.
H