http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  534 of 2008

PETITIONER: Stanly Moses

RESPONDENT: State of Tamil Nadu

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/03/2008

BENCH: CJI K G Balakrishnan & R V Raveendran

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.534 OF 2008 (Arising out of  S.L.P. [CRL.] No.5137 of 2006)

       Exemption from filing O.T. granted. Delay condoned. Leave granted. Heard learned  counsel for the appellant and learned senior counsel for the State.

2.      The appellant was convicted by Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari Division at  Nagercoil by judgment dated 5.10.1998 for offences punishable under sections 302 and  341 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment (section 302  IPC) and one month’s RI (section 341 IPC). The appeal filed by the appellant challenging  the said judgment was dismissed by the Madras High Court by its judgment dated  7.1.2003, thereby confirming the conviction and sentence.

3.      The prosecution case was that the deceased John Reghu was learning auto driving  from his friend PW-4 \026 Selvan Daniel. The appellant Stanly Moses took on hire the  autorickshaw  owned  by PW 4.  When   PW 4       demanded the auto rickshaw hire  charges  

from the appellant, the deceased John Reghu supported PW 4 and asked the appellant to  pay the hire charges to PW 4. The appellant objected to it and there was a quarrel  between the deceased and the appellant. On the date of the incident (27.8.1996) the  appellant went to the house of the deceased and inquired whether the deceased was at  home. PW-1, the mother of the deceased, stated that he was not at home. The appellant  went away making threats against the deceased. Later, on the same day, appellant met  the deceased and there ensued a quarrel between them and the appellant stabbed the  deceased who died as a result of the injury sustained. PW1 (mother of the deceased) and  PW2 (sister of the deceased) were the two eye witnesses who supported the prosecution  case. Their evidence was believed by the Sessions Court and the High Court. We find no  reason to disbelieve their evidence as to what transpired on that day or the finding of guil t  recorded by the courts below.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the quarrel between the appellant  and the deceased was over a petty issue and was of a sudden nature and the appellant  has caused only one injury on the deceased and therefore the offence did not come within  the purview of section 302 IPC. Learned senior counsel appearing for the State, on the  other hand, contended that the appellant had caused the death of the deceased with pre- meditation and therefore the offence will fall under section 302 IPC.

5.      The prosecution evidence shows that there was a quarrel over a petty issue  between the appellant and the deceased. The incident happened on a public road. The  post mortem conducted    on    the    deceased    showed    only    one   stab   injury   on     the    deceased.

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

There is no dispute as to the nature of the quarrel between the appellant and the  deceased or about the fact that there was only one injury on the deceased. On considering  the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the culpable homicide by the  appellant did not amount to murder, as exception 4 to section 300 IPC was attracted and  that the offence was punishable only under section 304 Part I of IPC and not section 302  IPC. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under section 302 IPC is set aside and  instead he is found guilty of offence punishable under section 304 Part I and is sentenced  to undergo ten years’ rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence under section  341 IPC remain undisturbed.

6.      The appeal is disposed of accordingly, modifying the sentence to the extent  mentioned above.