The Division Bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justices R. Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy opined that regarding 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.
Facts
The respondent/complainant and the accused have adjoining lands. 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 and an injunction order was granted in his favor. It was the case of the prosecution that on the date of occurrence, the accused tried to put a fence, 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.
Procedural History
The Trial Court 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. It also found that the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife, but there was no premeditation or pre-planning and it was a sudden quarrel and the appellant exercised his right of private defence, but exceeded the limit. The High Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant/accused no.1 in which he was convicted for offence u/s 304(ii) of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of which he has to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
Contentions made
Appellant: This Court issued notice, limited to the quantum of punishment. The Trial Court itself has found that the complainant’s family members are aggressors and there was no premeditation or preplanning and it was a sudden quarrel, where the appellant exercised his right of private defence. It is also submitted that regarding injuries caused on family members of the appellant, despite complaint, no steps were taken to prosecute the family of the complainant. Reliance was placed on Lakshmi Chand & Anr. vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Madhavan & Ors. vs State of Tamil Nadu.
Respondent: As the appellant was convicted under Section 304(ii) of IPC, as such, no case is made out to modify the sentence also. Reliance was placed on Ram Pyare Mishra vs Prem Shanker & Ors.
Observations of the Court
The Bench observed that:
“It is also clearly held by the Trial Court that it was not a pre-meditated or pre-planned incident. It happened in a sudden quarrel on the day of occurrence i.e., on 14.06.2010. 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.”
Judgment
This appeal was allowed partly, and while confirming the conviction for offence under Section 304(ii) of the IPC, the Bench modified the sentence to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo three months’ rigorous imprisonment.
Case Name: Govindan vs State represented by The Deputy Superintendent of Police
Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1665 of 2021
Bench: Justice R. Subhash Reddy, Justice Hrishikesh Roy
Decided on: 17th December 2021
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
