NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 557 OF 2010

KARUPPANNA GOUNDER                            …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE REP. BY THE  INSPECTOR OF POLICE                     …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

This appeal filed by the accused­appellant is directed against the

judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 19.12.2008,

whereby conviction of the appellant no.1 (A1) under Section 302,

Indian  Penal  Code, 1860 (IPC for short) has been  upheld.  Since

appellant No.2 (A2­Rajendran) has died during the pendency of this

appeal, the appeal shall stand abated in so far as appellant no.2 is

concerned.

2. The facts of the case are that Chinnappa Gounder (deceased) was

the neighbour of the first accused.   They both had adjacent landed

properties and shared a common boundary.  There was a common well

1

on this boundary which was also divided between the appellant no.1

and the deceased.  A dividing wall was there in      the well.

3. The appellant had initiated some civil proceedings and appear to

have obtained an order permitting accused no.1 to repair the well.  On

17.07.2000, Karuppanna Gounder, his son­in­law Rajendran, his wife

Thangaiyee, his son Mayakrishnan, and some others were removing

sand from their portion of the well when PW­6, son of the deceased

Chinnappa Gounder objected to this action since they were dropping

the sand on the passage used by the deceased and his family.   

4. On this a quarrel ensued  and there  was  a verbal  altercation

between the parties.  The first accused­Karuppanna Gounder attacked

Chinnappa Gounder with a  Sammatti  (hammer), and A2, his son­in­

law used a Koduval (sickle) to attack Chinnappa Gounder on the head.

A4 and A5 attacked the deceased with iron rods and hit him on the

head while the other accused attacked the deceased with stones and

sticks.  When PW6 tried  to intervene he  was also  attacked by  the

accused.   Thereafter, Chinnappa Gounder was taken to the hospital

where he died.   After completing all investigations, the police filed a

report  under Section 173 of the Code of  Criminal  Procedure,  1973

against the appellant no.1 and 12 other accused.   They pleaded not

2

guilty and claimed trial.   After trial, the trial court found A1­

Karuppanna Gounder guilty of charge of murder and he was awarded

life imprisonment.   A2­Rajendran was also held guilty under Section

302,  307, 324  of IPC  and  was awarded life imprisonment for the

offence of murder.  All the other accused who were charged for various

offences including murder were acquitted by the trial court.

5. The High Court upheld the sentence of the A1­appellant herein,

but as far A2­son­in­law, Rajendran was concerned, it was held that

the injuries caused on the skull of the deceased Chinnappa Gounder

were fatal.  However, as per the medical opinion this injury could not

have been caused with  Koduval  (sickle).   Since the injury was a

lacerated wound, the  High Court  held  that it  could not  have been

caused by a sharp­edged weapon.   The court further held that there

was no attempt to murder by A2 but he caused simple injuries to 4

persons i.e.,  PW­6, PW­9, PW­10 and PW­11, and awarded 3 years

rigorous imprisonment.

6. We have heard Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel

appearing for the appellant no.1.  The main issue is whether the injury

caused by the appellant­A1 can be said to be the cause of death of the

deceased.   There are many eye­witnesses, including PW­1, A. Senthil

3

Kumar. Since the depositions made by all of them are similar, we are

only referring to the statement of PW­1.  

7.  According to this witness, after the verbal altercation took place,

the appellant­A1 and his son Kandasamy returned to their house but

came back to the place of occurrence soon along with their son­in­law

Rajendran.   It  is alleged that the appellant­A1 chased the deceased

with  Sammatti  (hammer) in his hand and gave a blow with the

hammer on the back side of the head of the deceased.  Here we may

mention that there  is  some variation  in  the translation because at

some places it is mentioned as back of the neck and in some places as

back of the head.   Be that as it may, the injury allegedly caused to

Chinnappa Gounder  by  the  appellant  no.1  was at the  back of the

head.  Chinnappa sat down raising a cry.  Then A2­ Rajendran hit him

on the centre of the head with a Koduval (sickle).  A3 and A4 allegedly

hit the deceased at the place where A2­Rajendran had hit the

deceased.   We may point out that in cross examination all have

admitted that  both the  appellants  gave  only  one  blow each  to the

deceased Chinnappa Gounder.

8. As observed above, the High Court held that the injury on the

centre of the head could not have been caused by the Koduval (sickle)

4

only on the ground that the injury was a lacerated wound and,

therefore,  could not  have been caused with a sharp­edged weapon.

We are of the view that this view of the High Court may not be correct

because a Koduval (sickle) has a sharp side on the inner portion and a

blunt side on the outer portion.  Injury could have been caused by the

outer side of the  Koduval  (sickle).   Unfortunately, the State has not

filed any appeal and since the occurrence took place 19 years back, we

may not reopen the matter.

9. Now coming to the post­mortem report, there are 4 injuries

mentioned out of which two are relevant and they are as follows:­

“1. Laceration 10x2 cm bone deep on middle of head in parietal  area. 2. Compound fracture skull with laceration 10x4x3 cm deep

from frontal to parietal area of head.   Brain matter is exposed with injury to membranes.”

10. The first injury is 10x2 cm bone deep on the middle of the head

in the parietal area meaning from the centre of the skull towards the

back. The second injury which is a bigger injury goes from the frontal

to the parietal area.  The injury was caused with such great force that

the skull broke into many pieces and the brain matter had come out of

the skull.

5

11. The question is whether the death of the deceased could be

attributed to the injury caused by the appellant­A1. The appellant is

alleged to have used the Sammatti (hammer) and he gave a blow at the

back of the head or on the neck of the deceased.  Both the injuries do

not correspond with the injury of the back of the head or neck.  These

injuries can be related to the attack made by A2­Rajendran, A3 and

A4, who have alleged to have used iron rods.   Unfortunately, A3 and

A4 have been acquitted and A2 has only been convicted for causing

simple injury with a weapon. Furthermore, since only one accused is

left, we cannot take recourse to the provisions of Section 34 or Section

149 IPC.

12. In view of the above, we give benefit of doubt to the appellant

no.1, acquitting him of the offence of murder but convict him under

Section  324, IPC.  The  appellant  has  already  undergone sufficient

punishment for that offence and, therefore, his sentence is modified to

the period already undergone by him.   The appellant is on bail, his

bail bonds are discharged. The appeal is partly allowed in the

aforesaid terms.  Application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed.

………………………J. (Deepak Gupta)

6

……………………….J. (Aniruddha Bose)

New Delhi September 17, 2019

7