Arumugam v. State Rep. by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 309 -[l ] A ~--, J -\ ~ ## ARUMUGAM _v._ STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU (Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2001) OCTOBER 13, 2008 B **[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.]** _Penal Code, 1860:_ ss. _304 (Part /), 302 and_ s. _300,. exception 4_ - _Murder or_[c ] _Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder_ - _Fight between_ - _parties over panchayat elections Next day accused armed with deadly weapons attacked the deceased resulting in his death_ - _Incident witnessed by relatives of deceased_ - _Conviction u/s. 302 by courts below_ - _Justification of_ - _Held: Evi-_ D _dence of witnesses cannot be discarded on their being close relative of deceased- Exception 4 to_ s. _300 not applicable_ as _occurrence did not take place in the course of sudden quarrel_ - _On facts of the case and the legal position, conviction altered to_ s. _304 (Part I) with custodial sentence of 10 years_ - E _Evidence._ s. _300, Exception 4_ - _Applicability of_ - _Explained._ _s.300, Exceptions 1 and 4-Distinction between-Ex-_ p~~e~ **F** _Evidence Act, 1872:_ s. _3_ - _Testimony of related witness_ - _Evidentiary value of_ - _Held: Relationship is not_ a _factor to affect credibility of_ a _witness._ _Evidence: Normal discrepancies and material discrepancies_ - _Distinction between_ - _Stated._ G _Words and phrases: 'Fight', 'sudden fight' and 'undue advantage'-Meaning of- In the context of Exception 4 to_ s. _300, /PC._ H 309 310 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A A According to the prosecution case, the deceased, A1, A3, PW 1 and PW 2 were brothers. The deceased, the ap:pellant-A 1, A3, A2;.son ofA3, PW 1. and 2 were living as a joint family. Dispute arose between A1, A3 and the deceased over the Panchayat elections. A3 alleged false B charges against the deceased. The deceased refuted the charges and fight took place between both of them. A3 also shouted that he would kill the deceased. On the fateful day, A1 armed with spike, A2 with aruval and A3 with stick came to the house of deceased and attacked him c which resulted in his death on the spot. PW-1, who tried to intervene, was also injured. Thereafter, the accused fled · away. PW1; PW2 as also PW3, the sister of the deceased, witnessed the incident. Trial court convicted the appellant (A-1) for offence punishable u/s. 302 IPC. A-2 was convicted u/s. 302 r/w s. 34 IPC. A-3 was convicted u/s. 0 323 IPC~ A-3 did not file any appeal. High Court upheld the order. Hence the appeal by A-1. A-2 did not file appeal against order of High Court. Appellant-accused contended that evidence of PW E 1 and 2 should have been discarded as they were related to the deceased; and that Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC ·. · is applicable as the occurrence took place in the course of sudden quarrel, thus, s. 302 IPC was ruled out. · Partly allowing the appeal, the Court F HELD: 1. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make "2.-fGgations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if G plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. The ground that the witness being a close relative is. a partisan witness and should not be relied upon, has no substance. [Paras H 7 and 10] [315-C-D; 316-8] ## \. ._.>., ..._____, ## ARUMUGAM _v._ STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 311 POLICE, TAMIL NADU _Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab_ AIR 1953 A SC 364; _Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan_ 1974 (3) SCC 698; _Vadive/u Thevar v. State of Madras_ AIR 1957 SC 614; _Masalti and Ors. v. State of UP_ AIR 1965 SC 202; _State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh_ AIR 1973 SC 2407; _Lehna v. State of Haryana_ 2002 (3) SCC 76; _Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v._ B - _State of Orissa_ 2002 (8) SCC 381 referred to. B 4~-J -~ 2.1 The Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner;[c ] and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be satisfied. [Para 15] [318 .. D-E] 2.2 Where the offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him. If the weapon used or the manner of attack by the assailant is out of all proportion, that circumstance must be taken into consideration to decide whether undue advantage has been taken. [Para 16] [319-8] D E _Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan_ AIR 1993 SC 2426 - referred to. .. _, Jt ..,.\.. 3. When the factual background is considered in the touchstone of the legal position set out, the inevitable[F ] conclusion is that the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 (Part. I) IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. Custodiar sentence of 1 O years would meet the ends of justice. [Para 17] [319-D] _State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr._ AIR 1981 SC[G ] 1390; _Krishna Mochi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc._ JT 2002 (4) SC 186; _Kikar Singh v. State of_ Rajast~an AIR 1993 SC 2426 - referred to. H 312 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A B c |CASE|CASELAWREFERENCE|| |---|---|---| |AIR1953SC364|Referredto.|Para8| |1914(3)sec698|Referredto.|Para9| |AIR1957SC614|Referredto.|Para9| |AIR1965SC202|Referredto.|Para11| |AIR1973SC2407|Referredto.|Para12| |2002(3)sec76|Referredto.|Para12| |-2002(8)sec381|Referredto.|Para12| |AIR1981SC1390|Referredto.|Para12| |JT2002(4)SC186|Referredto.|Para12| |AIR1993SC2426|Referredto.|Para16| D CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 967 of 2001 From the final Judgment and Order dated 4.8.2000 of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 854 of 1989 E V. Kanakaraj, S.Thananjayan for the Appellant. V.G. Pragasam for the Respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by F DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court upholding the conviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') so far accused A1 is concerned, and the coG accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC. Learned District and Sessions Judge, Tirunvelveli, has held the appellant and the co-accused guilty and as aforenoted by judgment dated 20.10.1989 in Sessions Case No.140of1987. Another person Subbiah-A3 was charged H for commission of offence punishable under Section 323 IPC. ARUMUGAM _v._ STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 313 POLICE, TAMIL NADU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] _,\ ).. ~-~ -\ ~ -~ .,, A3 did not prefer appeal before the High Court and A2 has also A not filed any appeal before this Court. ## 2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: - _j_ > ~ _.>._ According to the prosecution appellant herein along with Shanmugavel A2 and Subbiah-A3 the father of A2 caused the B death of one Vairamuthu (hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') at 2.30 p.m. on 22.4.1986 at Villam village, Tenkasi Taluk. The first accused Arumugam and the third accused Subbiah are brothers. The deceased is none other than the brother of first and third accused. The accused, the deceased as well as PWs 1 and 2 - the brothers of A 1 and A3 and the deceased were[c ] living as joint family in Palayampattu Street, Vallam village. During the panchayat election in 1986, in Ward No.II, three persons contested i.e. A 1, the deceased Vairamuthu and one Murthi (PW4). The first accused requested the deceased to withdraw D his nomination. The deceased refused to do so. The first accused had withdrawn himself from contesting in the election. The deceased was elected as a member of the Ward No.II. Atter two weeks, there was an election for the President of the Panchayat Board. On 21.4.1986 at 9 p.m. the third accused E Subbiah came to the house and questioned the deceased as to how he received money to exercise his right to vote in the President election. The deceased refuted the said charge and also beat A3 who also beat the deceased. PW 4 and others separated_ the deceased and A3. While returning, A3 shouted that by any means, he will kill the deceased . F F On the fateful day i.e. on 22.4.1986, the deceased was returning from his mango grove at 2.30 p.m. At that time, A 1 armed with spike (M01 ), A2 armed with aruval (M02) and A3 armed with stick (M03), came to his house. A3 entered into the house G and dragged the deceased by holding the shirt and challenged saying "yesterday, you beat me, now you beat me". There was exchange of hot words. Immediately, A 1 stabbed the deceased on his right neck with the spike, which pierced through the neck of the deceased and came out on the left side as stated by PW1 . H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. 314 A The second accused cut the deceased on his leg with the aruval as stated by PW1 ~ The second accused questioned the third accused as to why the deceased was not yet killed .. So saying, the second accused cut the deceased twice on his head. The deceased swooned and fell down. When PW1 tried to intervene, B the third accused beat him with the stick on his right index finger, . -i.eftthigh and on the back. When.A3 attempted to beat PW1 again, he avoided the same by bending and the blow fell on the head of A 1 who fell down. Thereafter, A 1 tried to pull out the spike M01 from the neck .of the deceased and the spike broke into two pieces. · c A2 and A3,. along with the weapons; ran away. The spike was identified by PW1. The death was instantaneous. The occurrence w~s witnessed by PW1 and PW2, who are the brothers and PW3 the sister of the deceased as well as accused 1 and 3. Pichai Kannu (PW1) and Ramakrishnan (PW2) went to D K1Jtralam Police Station and gave the complaint. PW13, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kutralam Police Station recorded the state. ment of PW1 at 3.30 p.m., which is Ex.P1 as attested by PW2. He also prepared the first information report on the basis of which investigation was undertaken. E 3. After completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. Since the accused -persons pleaded innocence, trial was held. Primarily relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 the trial Court found the accused guilty. As noted above, the accused persons pleaded innocence. Two appeals were preferred before the F High Court and the present appeal is related to Criminal appeal no.854of1989 while other appeal was numbered as Criminal appeal no.4 of 1992. Before the High Court stand was that evidence of PWs 1 and 2 should have been discarded as they· are related to the deceased. In any event, it was submitted that G Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC applies as the occurrence took place in the course of sudden quarrel and, therefore, Section 302 IPC is ruled out. 4. The High Court did not find any substance in the aforesaid plea and dismissed the appeal. H \ - ARUMUGAM _v._ STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 315 POLICE, TAMIL NADU [DR ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] -~ _I_ 5. In support of the appeal, learne~-counsel for the appelA lant reiterated the stand taken before the High Court. Learned counsel for the respondent-State on the other hand supported the judgments of the trial Court and the High Court. ,.. ..___, ""' - .... _ ·.~ I "' _-j_ ~ 6. The plea relating to interested witness is a regular featu re in almost every criminal .trial. B 7. We shall first deal with the contention regarding interestedness of the witnesses for furthering prosecution version. Re_lationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal c actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. In such cases, the court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. D 8. In _Dalip Singh and Ors. v. The State of Punjab_ (AIR 1953 SC 364) it has been laid down as under:- "A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relation 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 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 generalization. Each case· must be judged on its own facts. Our observations are only made to combat what is so often put forward in cases before us as a general rule of prudence. Ther~ is no such general rule. Each case must be limited to and be governed by its own facts." E F G _:i_ H SUPREME COURT REPORTS 316 [2008] 14 S.C.R. E A 9. The above decision has since been followed in _Guli Chand and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan_ (1974 (3) SCC 698) in which _Vadivelu Thevar v. State of Madras_ (AIR 1957 SC 614) was also relied upon. 10. We may also observe that the ground that the witness B being a -close relative and consequently being a partisan witness, should not be relied upon, has no substance. This theory was repelled by this Court as early as in _Da/ip Singh's_ case (supra) in which surprise was expressed over the impression which prevailed in the minds of the Members of the Bar that C relatives were not independent witnesses. Speaking through Vivian Bose, J. it was observed: D "We are unable to agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that the testimony of the two eyewitnesses requires corroboration. If the foundation for such an observation is based on the fact that the witnesses are women and that the fate of seven men hangs on their testimony, we know of no such rule. If it is grounded on the reason that they are closely related to the deceased we are unable to concur. This is a fallacy common to many criminal cases and one which another Bench of this Court endeavoured to dispel in _; _'Rameshwar v. State of Rajasthan'_ (AIR 1952 SC 54 at p.59). We find, however, that it unfortunately still persists, if not in the judgments of the Courts, at any rate in the arguments of counsel." F 11. Again in _Masalti and Ors. v. State of U.P_ (AIR 1965 SC 202) this Court observed: (p. 209-210 para 14): G H "But it would, we think, be unreasonable to contend that evidence given by witnesses should be discarded only on the ground that it is evidence of partisan or interested witnesses ....... The mechanical rejection of such 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 cautious in dealing with such evidence; ARUMUGAM _v._ STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 317 1 A ~-~ ,. > ' "" but the plea that such evidence should be rejected because it is partisan cannot be accepted as correct." 12. To the same effect is the decision in _State of Punjab v. Jagir Singh_ (AIR 1973 SC 2407), _Lehna v. State of Haryana_ (2002 (3) SCC 76) and _Gangadhar Behera and Ors. v. State_ B _of Orissa_ (2002 (8) SCC 381). As observed by this Court in _State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Kalki and Anr._ (AIR 1981 SC 1390), normal discrepancies in evidence are those which are due to normal errors of observation, normal errors of memory due to lapse of time, due to mental disposition such as shock and horror at the time of occurrence and those are always there how-[c ] ever honest and truthful a witness may be. Material discrepancies are those which are not normal, and not expected of a normal person. Courts have to label the category to which a discrepancy may be categorized. While normal discrepancies do not corrode the credibility of a party's case, material discrepD ancies do so. These aspects were highlighted recently in _Krishna Machi and Ors. v. State of Bihar etc._ (JT 2002 (4) SC 186). - _i_ 13. The substantive plea relates to the applicability of Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. 14. For bringing in its operation it has to be established that the act was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel without the offender having taken undue advantage and not having acted in a cruel or unusual manner. E F 15. The Fourth Exception of Section 300 IPC covers acts done in a sudden fight. The said exception deals with a case of prosecution not covered by the first exception, after which its place would have been more appropriate. The exception is G founded upon the same principle, for in both there is absence of premeditation. But, while in the case of Exception 1 there is total deprivation of self-control, in case of Exception 4, there is only that heat of passion which clouds men's sober reason and urges them to deeds which they would not otherwise do. There H SUPREME COURT REPORTS 318 [2008] 14 S.C.R _(_ A is provocation in E;xception 4 as in Exception 1; but the injury done is not the direct consequence of that provocation. In fact Exception 4 deals with cases in which notwithstanding that a blow may have been struck, or some provocation given in the origin of the dispute or in whatever way the quarrel may have B originated, yet the subsequent conduct of both parties puts them in respect of guilt upon equal footing. A 'sudden fight' implies mutual provocation and blows on each side. The homicide committed is then clearly not traceable to unilateral provocation, nor in such cases could the whole blame be placed on one side. c For if it were so, the Exception more appropriately applicable would be Exception 1. There is no previous deliberation or determination to fight. A fight suddenly takes place, for which both parties are more or less to be blamed. It may be that one· of them starts it, but if the other had not aggravated it by his own conduct it would not have taken the serious turn it did. There is 0 then mutual provocation and aggravation, and it is difficult to apportion the share of blame which attaches to each fighter. The help of Exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation, (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or E unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the 'fight' occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the IPC. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires F that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties have worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with orwithout weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to G what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further H be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or ARUMUGAM _v._ STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF 319 POLICE, TAMIL NADU [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] ·~ _)_ acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression 'undue adA vantage' as used in the provision means 'unfair advantage'. ·. 16. Where the offender takes undue advantage or has acted in a cruel or unusual manner, the benefit of Exception 4 cannot be given to him. If the weapon used or the manner of attack by the assailant is out of all proportion, that circumstance B must be taken into consideration to decide whether undue ad~ vantage has been taken. In _Kikar Singh v. State of Rajasthan_ (AIR 1993 SC 2426) it was held that if the accused used deadly weapons against the unarmed man and struck a blow on the head it must be held that using the blows with the knowledge C that they were likely to cause death, he had taken undue advantage. 17. When the factual background is considered in the touchstone of the legal position set out above, the inevitable conclusion is that the appropriate conviction would be under D · Section 304 Part I IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. Custodial sentence of 10 years would meet the ends of justice. Appellant who is on bail pursuant to the order dated 21.1.2001 shall surrender to custody forthwith to serve remainder of sentence, if E any. 18. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. N.J. Appeal Partly allowed.