caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Govindan vs State Represented By The Deputy … on 17 December, 2021Author: R. Subhash Reddy
Bench: R. Subhash Reddy, Hrishikesh Roy
SLP(Crl.) No. 938 of 2021
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1665 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.938 OF 2021)
Govindan …Appellant
vs.
State represented by
The Deputy Superintendent
of Police …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
R. SUBHASH REDDY,J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This Appeal is preferred by the sole appellant
in Criminal Appeal No.179 of 2015 filed before the
High Court of Judicature at Madras, aggrieved by the
judgment and order dated 16.08.2019.
3. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court has
confirmed the conviction of the appellant/accused
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
no.1 in Sessions Case No.42 of 2011 on the file of
Date: 2021.12.17
16:49:08 IST
Reason:
the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri by
1
SLP(Crl.) No. 938 of 2021
which, the appellant was convicted for offence under
Section 304(ii) of IPC and sentenced to undergo
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a
fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo three
months rigorous imprisonment.
4. The sole appellant was tried along with three
other accused persons for offences under Sections
302 r/w 34, 307 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989. The accused nos.2 to 4 were
acquitted of all the charges, however, the appellant
alone was convicted for offence under Section
304(ii) of IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for ten years with a fine of
Rs.5,000/-.
5. The respondent/complainant and the accused are
having adjoining lands at Kolimekkanur. It is the
case of the complainant that there is an existing
pathway from the land of the accused to go to the
land of the complainant party. A Civil Suit was
filed by the appellant in O.S.No.146 of 2010 before
the Pappireddypatti District Munsif Court and an
injunction order was granted in favour of the
2
SLP(Crl.) No. 938 of 2021
appellant. It was the case of the prosecution that
on the date of occurrence, the accused tried to put
a fence, so as to block the de facto complainant’s
family members using the cart track. On the other
hand, the case of the appellant/accused is that the
de facto complainant tried to lay a new cart track
from the patta land of the appellant. In view of
such dispute about the cart track, there was a
quarrel in front of the appellant’s house by de
facto complainant’s family members. In the said
quarrel, female family members of the appellant
namely Ms.Kaliammal and Ms.Rajammal suffered
injuries, which provoked the appellant/accused
Govindan to attack on the deceased and cause knife
injuries which resulted in death of the deceased
Kamsala.
6. The Trial Court by appreciating oral and
documentary evidence on record, has recorded a
finding that the de facto complainant’s family
members were the aggressors and they have tried to
disturb the peaceful possession of the accused. The
Trial Court also found that the appellant stabbed
the deceased, Kamsala with a knife, but there was no
3
SLP(Crl.) No. 938 of 2021
premeditation or pre-planning and it was a sudden
quarrel and the appellant exercised his right of
private defence, but exceeded the limit.
7. The High Court while dismissing the Criminal
Appeal, has observed that when the Civil Suit is
pending between the parties and if at all, the de
facto complainant passed through their patta land,
the appellant/accused should have availed a remedy
before the Civil Court, but should not have attacked
the deceased.
8. We have heard Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior
counsel appearing for the appellant and Dr. Joseph
Aristotle S., learned counsel appearing for the
State of Tamil Nadu.
9. This Court by order dated 29.01.2021 issued
notice, limited to the quantum of punishment. The
Trial Court itself has found that there was a
quarrel in front of house of the accused by the de
facto complainant’s family members on the date of
incident. It is also clear from the evidence on
record that on the date of occurrence i.e.
13.06.2010, the dispute was only on account of cart
4
SLP(Crl.) No. 938 of 2021
track from the land of accused to reach the land of
the complainant. When there was an interference with
the land of the accused, a Civil Suit was filed in
which there were injunction orders issued by the
competent Civil Court. In deposition, PW-1 also
admitted that he along with his father, younger
brother and mother were put in civil prison for 30
days for violating the orders of the Court. Learned
senior counsel for the appellant has contended that
the unfortunate incident happened only on account of
civil dispute and when the complainant’s family
members themselves have assaulted the female family
members of the appellant, it provoked the accused to
retaliate on the family members of de facto
complainant. The Trial Court itself has recorded a
finding that the complainant’s family members are
aggressors and there was no premeditation or pre-
planning and it was a sudden quarrel, where the
appellant exercised his right of private defence. It
is also submitted that with regard to injuries
caused on family members of the appellant, in spite
of complaint, no steps were taken to prosecute the
family of the complainant. On the other hand,
5
SLP(Crl.) No. 938 of 2021
learned counsel for the respondent-State has
submitted that as the appellant was convicted under
Section 304(ii) of IPC, as such, no case is made out
to modify the sentence also.
10. In the judgment of this Court in the case of
Lakshmi Chand and Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh1,
relied on by the learned senior counsel for the
appellant, this Court has reduced the sentence from
eight years to two years mainly on the ground that
the occurrence had taken place on spur of the moment
without any premeditation and the same was on
account of a dispute between the neighbours with
regard to straying cattle. Further, in the judgment
of this Court in the case of Madhavan and Ors. v.
State of Tamil Nadu2, this Court has reduced the
sentence of the accused who was convicted for
offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC, to five years
without disturbing fine amount, mainly on the ground
that incident in question, happened all of a sudden
without any premeditation and it was a free fight
between the members of two families and both sides
suffered injuries in the incident. Learned counsel
1
(2018) 9 SCC 704
2
(2017) 15 SCC 582
6
SLP(Crl.) No. 938 of 2021
for the respondent-State opposing for modification
of sentence, placed reliance on the judgment of this
Court in the case of Ram Pyare Mishra v. Prem
Shanker and Ors.3. In the aforesaid judgment, while
reversing the judgment of the High Court, this Court
has convicted the accused for offence under Section
304(i) of IPC and imposed the sentence of eight
years.
11. With regard to quantum of sentence, it all
depends on background facts of the case, antecedents
of the accused, whether the assault was premeditated
and pre-planned or not, etc. In this case on hand,
it is clear from the evidence on record that there
was a dispute with regard to pathway, which the
complainant’s family members were claiming from the
land of the accused. In view of such interference,
it appears that the accused filed a Suit and
obtained injunction orders from Civil Court and in
spite of the same, for violation of Court orders,
the family members of the complainant were put
behind bars for 30 days. The same is evident from
the deposition of PW-1. The incident occurred in
3
(2008) 14 SCC 614
7
SLP(Crl.) No. 938 of 2021
front of the house of the accused and when the
female family members of the accused were assaulted,
the appellant in retaliation seems to have assaulted
the family members of the complainant. Trial Court
itself has recorded that the de facto complainant’s
family members are the aggressors and they have
tried to disturb the peaceful possession of the
accused from their land. The said findings recorded
by the Trial Court, became final. The same was not
questioned either by the State or by the
complainant. It is also clearly held by the Trial
Court that it was not a premeditated or preplanned
incident. It happened in a sudden quarrel on the day
of occurrence i.e. on 14.06.2010.
12. Having regard to such findings recorded by the
Trial Court itself, which have become final and
further, in view of the judgments relied on by the
learned senior counsel for the appellant, which
support the case of the appellant for modifying the
sentence, we deem it appropriate that this is a fit
case to modify the sentence, to meet the ends of
justice.
8
SLP(Crl.) No. 938 of 2021
13. For the aforesaid reasons, while confirming the
conviction for offence under Section 304(ii) of the
IPC, we modify the sentence to two years’ rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in
default to undergo three (03) months’ rigorous
imprisonment.
14. The Appeal is allowed in part, to the extent as
indicated above.
………………………………………………J
[R. Subhash Reddy]
………………………………………………J
[Hrishikesh Roy]
New Delhi.
December 17, 2021
9
Comments