http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  380 of 1997

PETITIONER: Muthusamy & Anr.                                         

RESPONDENT: State of Tamil Nadu      

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/2003

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh.

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       The family of the appellants herein and that of the  deceased Bose owned neighbouring agricultural lands in  Lakshmipuram Village within the jurisdiction of Veerapandy  Police Station, Tamilnadu. Both the lands were irrigated by  one common well, in regard to which there was some dispute  between the two families. The family of the appellants had  installed a water pump and also had spent some money on  deepening the said well, in regard to which there was a  Panchayat which held that the family of the deceased could  install its own pump for the purpose of irrigating their land  but must pay its share of expenditure incurred in deepening  the well.  It is the case of the prosecution that on 10.11.1984  while the deceased and his brother PW-2 were trying to  install their pump, there was an argument between the  appellants and the deceased for the non-payment of dues.  Hence, during the said argument, the first appellant  threatened the deceased and his brother that the family of the  deceased could install the electric pump only after he (A-1)  was dead. The further case of the prosecution is that on  10.11.1984 when PW-1 and the deceased were returning  back from the well after placing the pipes and other  accessories near the well at about 11.30 a.m. near the house  of one Chinnamottaisamy, the appellants herein along with  the father of A-3, by name, Chellandy confronted them. At  that time, A-1 was armed with aruvel, A-2 (since deceased)  with stick and A-3 with soori knife and at the instigation of  A-1 to kill them, A-3 is said to have stabbed the deceased  with soori knife on the ingunial region and A-1 cut the  deceased with aruvel and A-2 hit with a stick which fell on  the right wrist of the deceased. The further case of the  prosecution is that when PW-1 raised a hue and cry the  accused attacked him also causing certain simple injuries on  him, consequent to the said attack the brother of PW-1 Bose  died. A complaint in this regard was lodged at about 2.30  p.m. in Veerapandy Police Station, wherein PW-14 the Sub- Inspector of Police recorded the complaint and registered a  case for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 IPC  both read with Section 34 IPC. After the investigation, the  three accused persons out of whom two are before us in this  appeal, were charged for offences, as stated above.          During the course of trial, the prosecution through the  evidence of PW-9, the Medical Officer, established the fact  that the deceased had suffered as many as three injuries out  of which injury No.1 which had cut the femoral artery and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

vein as well as the head injury which caused cerebral  haemorrahage caused the death of the deceased due to shock  and haemorrahage. The prosecution through the other  medical evidence of PW-7 established the fact that PW-1 had  suffered as many as 7 injuries though the said injuries were  simple. It is on the basis of this medical evidence coupled  with the evidence of PW-1 who is the injured eye-witness as  well as that of PW-2 who happened to come to the place of  incident at the time of attack, as also based on the defence  taken by the accused, the trial court convicted the accused  persons for offence punishable under Section 302 read with  Section 34 IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment  for life. It also convicted them for an offence punishable  under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC for having  attempted to commit the murder of PW-1 and sentenced them  to undergo R.I. for a period of 7 years and directed the  sentences to run concurrently.  An appeal filed by the convicted accused to the High  Court of Judicature at Madras came to be dismissed,  confirming the judgment and conviction made by the learned  Sessions Judge.  The convicted accused filed the SLP before this Court  and during the pendency of that petition, A-2 died and this  Court granted leave to appeal only to the present appellants. In this appeal, Shri A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel  appearing for the appellants contended that the incident in  question, as narrated by the prosecution, has not been proved  by the prosecution. He also contended that the oral evidence  led by the prosecution in this regard being that of the  interested persons only the same ought not to have been  accepted by the courts below. He also contended assuming  that the incident had taken place, from the prosecution case  itself, it is clear that it had occurred during a fight arising out  of the dispute in sharing water from a common well,  therefore, no intention to cause death or attempt to cause  murder could ever be attributed to the accused persons. At  any rate, he submitted since the injury caused by A-1 is  inconsequential, he cannot be convicted for an offence  punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC or for  an offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 IPC  and at the most he could only be guilty of an offence  punishable under Section 323 IPC.          Shri A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, learned senior counsel  appearing for the respondent-State supported the judgments  of the two courts below.  Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and  perused the records, we find no merit in this appeal. The  appellants in clear terms have admitted the incident in  question though not as projected by the prosecution. It is their  case that the deceased and PW-1 were the aggressors and  they only defended themselves without there being any  intention to cause any fatal injury to deceased or PW-1. In this background, we will have to examine the fact  whether the courts below were justified in coming to the  conclusion that the overt act of the appellants establish their  intention to cause fatal injuries to the deceased and also  whether the accused attempted to commit the murder of PW- 1.  From the nature of the injuries caused to the deceased,  it is clear that they are so grave and are caused to such vital  part of the body that there can be no doubt that the intention  of the appellants was atleast to cause such bodily injury  which would lead to death. Therefore, the argument that there  was no intention on the part of the accused to commit the  murder or that the offence is one that does not fall under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

Section 302 IPC for conviction cannot be accepted.  So also the argument of the learned counsel that A-1  did not share the common intention of the other two accused  persons especially that of the appellant No.2 herein to cause  the death cannot also be accepted because it is established  beyond reasonable doubt that apart from the fact that he was  armed with a very dangerous weapon like aruvel he had also  exhorted the other two accused to kill the deceased and his  brother. We also notice that appellant No.2 herein (A-3)  caused a serious injury on the deceased on a vital artery in  the leg, and thereafter the first accused proceeded to attack  the deceased which indicates that all the accused persons  including A-1 shared the common intention of each other to  cause the death of the deceased and PW-1, in the process  they could succeed in killing the deceased and could only  cause injuries to PW-1.         In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere  with the findings of the two courts below. The appeal fails  and the same is dismissed.