ITEM NO.105               COURT NO.11             SECTION IIA

           S U P R E M E   C O U R T   O F   I N D I A                          RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(s). 1191 OF 2007

KUMARAVEL                                         Appellant (s)

                VERSUS

STATE OF INSPECTOR OF POLICE                      Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for exemption from filing O.T.,permission to file additional documents  and office  report )

Date:  23/07/2009  This  Appeal  was called  on for  hearing  today.

CORAM :   HON'BLE  MR.  JUSTICE  HARJIT  SINGH  BEDI

       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B.S. CHAUHAN

For Appellant(s)                      Mr. K.K. Mani,Adv.

Mr. Ankit Swarup,Adv.

For Respondent(s)                      Mr. S. Thananjayan,Adv.

          UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following                                O R D E R

The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.

      [SUMAN WADHWA]              [VINOD KULVI]         COURT MASTER                      COURT MASTER

Signed order is placed on the file.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1191 OF 2007

KUMARAVEL      ….APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE      …RESPONDENT

O R D E R

This appeal has been filed at the instance of the accused against the concurrent  

orders  of  conviction  under  Section  302  of  the  IPC  and  a  sentence  of  

imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default R.I. for two years.

The facts leading to this appeal are as under:-

The deceased, Mani, was the brother-in-law of PW.1-Raman and PW.2-Elumalai.  

The appellant, Kumaravel, owned a piece of land situated adjacent to the land  

belonging to PWs.1 and 2 and as they shared a common boundary, there was a  

dispute between them pertaining thereto.  Mani who was married to the sister of  

PWs. 1 and 2 stayed in the village of his in laws and helped the PWs in their  

agricultural operations.

On 22/09/2001 water had collected in the fields on account of heavy rain  

and the appellant drained out the water from his field which flooded the land of  

the PWs and destroyed their ground-nut crop.  On coming to know as to what  

had happened, PW-2 and his father, remonstrated with the appellant who in turn  

assaulted them.  The animosity between the PWs and their father on the one  

side, and the appellant on the other was thereby exacerbated.   

On  30-09-2001  Mani  went  to  Siruvathur  to  work  as  a  daily  wager  and  after  

returning therefrom he found PWs1 and 2 and their father harvesting their crop.  

At about 3.00 p.m. as Mani was proceeding towards his house, he was waylaid

by the appellant who questioned him as to why he was supporting his father-in-

law.   He thereafter caught hold of him by his neck, pressed it hard and pushed it  

into the muddy water lying stagnant in the field.  One PW.3-Maarku Knonar saw  

this incident and informed PWs. 1 and 2 who rushed to the place of occurrence  

and found the appellant pressing the neck of the deceased into the water.  The  

appellant then ran away from the spot.  The witnesses, however, found that Mani  

was dead.  A report was duly lodged at the police station and after completion of  

the investigation the appellant was charged under Section 302 of the IPC by the  

Sessions Court and brought to trial.

The prosecution in support of its case relied primarily on the evidence  

of PWs1 and 2 whereas PW.3 turned hostile.  The prosecution also produced in  

evidence PW.7 Dr. Selvaraj who had conducted the post mortem and who had  

opined that death was due to asphyxia.  The prosecution case was put to the  

accused and he denied all the allegations levelled against him and pleaded false  

implication.

The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforestated.  

This conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High Court.  The matter is  

before us by way of special leave.

Mr.  K.K.  Mani,  the  learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  has  sought  to  

contend that the eye witnesses could not be believed on account of animosity  

between the parties.  He also submitted that in any case there was no intention  

on the part of the appellant to have killed the deceased as had he intended to do  

so  he  would  have armed himself  with  some lethal  weapons  but  had on the  

contrary used his bare hands to commit the crime.  He has submitted that in  

case the first submission was not accepted the matter would, nevertheless, fall  

within the ambit of Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC.

The learned counsel  for the State Ms. Promila has,  however,  argued  

that  from  the  perusal  of  the  ocular  evidence  it  was  clear  that  the  relations  

between  the parties  were  strained  and the murder  was  pre-meditated  as  the  

appellant had waylaid the deceased and drowned him, on account of strained  

relations.

We have heard the learned  counsel  for  the parties  and perused  the  

record.   We find absolutely no reason to disbelieve PWs 1 and 2.   It  is  the  

admitted position that the relations between the parties were strained but in the  

light  of  the  fact  that  there  is  only  one  accused  the  question  of  any  false  

implication would not arise.  We, however, find merit in the second argument of  

the learned counsel for the appellant and observe that in the light of the fact that  

the incident was not pre-meditated and the meeting between the appellant was  

co-incidental and only bare hands had been used in suffocating the deceased  

who was as per the medical evidence was a healthy and young individual, the  

matter would fall within Section 304 Part-I and not Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.  

We, therefore, allow this appeal to the extent that the conviction is converted  

from one under Section 302 to  

304 Part-I, of the IPC, and the sentenced is reduced to 10 years R.I.; the fine and

the default clause remaining as it is.

……………………….J.      (HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

    ….…………………….J.       (DR.B.S. CHAUHAN)

New Delhi, July 23, 2009