Karuppusamy and Chinnasamy vs State

David Annoussamy, J.—This revision petition is by the two accused.

The two accused are brothers the accused incensed by a complaint before the police station given by P.W. 1 regarding an alteration, which

took place one week back and also by the fact that P.W. 1 or his henchmen have been responsible to setting fire to the house of the accused,

attacked P.W. 1 on 31.8.1983 at 1 p.m. in the street and caused him several injuries. P.W. 7, who investigated the case filed a final report under

S. 173 of Crl.P.C., to the effect that an offence under S. 307 of the I.P.C, and one under S. 341, I.P.C., appear to have been committed by

accused 1 and 2. Thereupon charges were framed accordingly by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Udumalpet. After perusing the evidence adduced

by the prosecution consisting of seven witnesses, eight exhibits and seven material objects including the arm used (M.O.5 pen-knife), the court

came to the conclusion that the case against the accused was proved, convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to three years rigorous

imprisonment under S. 307 of the I.P.C., and to one month simple imprisonment under S. 341 of I.P.C., and ordered both the sentences to run

concurrently.

On appeal, the first additional Sessions Judge of Coimbatore, by judgment dated 21.2.1984, upon re appraisal of the evidence afresh and

hearing the arguments from both sides, confirmed the convictions and sentences, as ordered by the trial court. Against the said judgment of the

appellant court, this Revision is filed.

The only point raised by the Learned Counsel for the revision petitioners ii that the offence committed by the accused would not come under S.

307, I.P.C., but only under S. 308, I.P.C.

For an offence to come under S. 307, I.P.C. , the act should be done with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that if

death was caused by that act, the person responsible for the act would be guilty of murder. If under the circumstances, he would be guilty only of

culpable homicide, the offence would come under S. 308, I.P.C. For culpable homicide to become a murder, two conditions are necessary.

Firstly, the act should fall within one of the four clauses indicated in S. 300, I.P.C. and Secondly, the act should not fall under any of the exceptions

contained in the same Section. In this case, the prosecution version is that the accused whilst attacking P.W. 1 stated.

Much importance cannot be attached to such words, which are used in all kinds of disputes among village folk. We have to take into account the

other circumstances. It is true that the accused have indiscriminately cut P.W. 1 and have caused as many as ten injuries, some of them on the vital

parts of the body. But it is also to be borne in mind that the arm used is only an ordinary penknife, the iron portion of which was only 2� inches

as per Ex. P6. The occurrence took place in an accidental encounter in the middle of the street on broad day-light at 1 P.M therefore no intention

whatsoever to cause the death of P.W. 1 can be attributed to any of the accused. As far as knowledge referred to in Cl.4 of S. 300 of the I.P.C, is

concerned the nature and scope of the knowledge required for culpable homicide to become a murder has been explained in C.A. 380/83 by

judgment, dated 18.4.1986 by a Division Bench of this Court, (unreported). The circumstances of the case do not disclose that the accused had

the knowledge as contemplated in Cl. 4 to S. 300, I.P.C. Therefore, they can be only attributed with simple knowledge contemplated in S. 399,

I.P.C., and therefore, if death has occurred in this case, the accused would have been only guilty of culpable homicide. Such being the case, the

accused are only guilty of an offence under S. 308, I.P.C., as rightly contended by the Learned Counsel for the Revision petitioners.

In the result, the conviction and sentence against the accused under S. 307, I.P.C., are set aside. They are instead found guilty under S. 308,

I.P.C., convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for the period already undergone, and to a fine of Rs. 300, each to be paid within two

months from the date of intimation by the trial court, failing which, they shall undergo three months simple imprisonment. The conviction and

sentence under S. 341, I.P.C., against the accused and the order that it should run concurrently with the sentence for the other offence, are

confirmed. With this modification of the conviction and sentence, the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.