SHANMUGAM ALIAS KULANDAIVELU Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2002-11-31
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on
November 12,2002
SHANMUGAM KULANDAIVELU
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. KRISHNAMURTI LAXMIPATI NAIDU [REFERRED TO]PAPARAMBAKA ROSAMMA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
LAXMAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
RAJESHBHAI JESINGBHAI VASAVA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2018-4-171] [REFERRED TO]SATISH KUMAR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2016-5-323] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-319] [REFERRED TO]
LOKENDRA TIWARI VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH [LAWS(CHH)-2008-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
SURESH VS. STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TUTICORIN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-2-555] [REFERRED TO]
RANBIR YADAV VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2017-8-235] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDER SINGH VS. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL [LAWS(SC)-2010-9-95] [REFERRED TO]
N. CHELLAIAH VS. STATE BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2013-2-142] [REFERRED TO]
SUDHIR VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-9-195] [REFERRED TO]
GHANTA RAGHUBABU VS. STATE [LAWS(APH)-2004-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK MAHABOOB BASHA VS. STATE OF A P [LAWS(APH)-2003-7-89] [REFERRED TO]
BHABANAND KAKOTI VS. STATE OF MEGHALAYA [LAWS(GAU)-2007-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
SHEKARAPPA VS. STATE [LAWS(KAR)-2022-8-629] [REFERRED TO]
VINOD KUMAR @ DOLLY VS. STATE OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2009-10-300] [REFERRED TO]
USHA RANI VS. STATE (DELHI ADMN.) [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-412] [REFERRED TO]
PARAS RAM VS. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2004-9-88] [REFERRED TO]
PASUNGILI VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2022-9-192] [REFERRED TO]
Sanjukta Sahu VS. Sailabala Mishra [LAWS(ORI)-2009-12-53] [REFERRED TO]
RATAN VS. STATE [LAWS(UTN)-2003-9-50] [REFERRED TO]
RAFIQ MOHAMMED VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2009-12-33] [REFERRED TO]
TEJMAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-5-95] [REFERRED TO]
RAJU VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2015-7-218] [REFERRED TO]
SAMPAT VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-8-228] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2013-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. DEEPAK AND ORS. [LAWS(GJH)-2015-3-71] [REFERRED TO]
GOPI CHAND VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-3-262] [REFERRED TO]
BALRAM SINGH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2009-7-475] [REFERRED TO]
NABI SHAREEF VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2004-4-131] [REFERRED TO]
KALIMUTHU VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2006-7-295] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYA LAL VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN [LAWS(RAJ)-2014-5-420] [REFERRED TO]
CHHOTELAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2004-9-38] [REFERRED TO]
PRABHAT KRISHNA VERMA @ BABLOO S/O PREM NATH VERMA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2020-3-52] [REFERRED TO]
JAI PRAKASH VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2010-1-168] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. CHAMAR RAMESHBHAI MAGANBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2014-1-116] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD. AKRAM KHAN VS. STATE OF M.P [LAWS(CHH)-2004-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAMMA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2015-6-188] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2023-5-205] [REFERRED TO]
Sree Vijayakumar VS. State [LAWS(MAD)-2003-4-47] [REFERRED TO]
Shanmugam VS. State [LAWS(MAD)-2004-10-120] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is a case in which the accused-appellant killed his younger brother after picking up quarrel on a petty issue and all the eye-witnesses including the wife of the deceased have turned hostile. The conviction of the appellant by the Sessions Judge, Salem is on the basis of two dying declarations the first one made to the police constable (PW-9) and the second one recorded by PW-11, the Judicial Magistrate, Erode. The High Court confirmed the conviction under S. 302, I.P.C. relying on the 1st dying declaration.
(2.)According to prosecution, on the evening of 17-11-1989, the deceased went to the land close to his fields to fetch water from the bore well. When he found his elder brother i.e. the accused whistling at that place, he questioned him as to why he was whistling at a place frequented by ladies. The accused having got enraged at this, ran towards his hut; the deceased followed him and queried as to why he was running. Within a few minutes, he came out of his hut with a sphere, hiding himself alongside the adjoining corn-field and pounced on the deceased and stabbed him on his abdomen and chest. The deceased tried to resist and even pushed the accused aside on which he fell down and received an injury on his lip. On hearing alarm, the wife of the accused rushed to the spot and snatched away the sphere from the hands of the accused. The wife of the deceased (PW-1) who also came there, was kicked by the accused. The deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital, Erode in a serious condition at about 8 p.m. P. W. 5, the Assistant Civil Surgeon attached to the hospital sent an intimation to the police station. Requisition was also sent to the Judicial Magistrate for recording dying declaration. PW-9 the police constable came to the hospital at 9.30 p.m. and recorded the statement of the injured and on the basis of this statement, FIR was registered for an offence under Section 307 which was later on converted to Section 302, I. P. C. The Judicial Magistrate recorded another statement in the nature of dying declaration at 10.45 p.m. The dying declaration was recorded in the presence of the Doctor on duty who endorsed thereon that the patient was conscious while the statement was being recorded. In the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, he stated that the land dispute between him and his brother was the cause of the attack. The prosecution tried to elicit the details of this alleged land dispute to throw light on the motive aspect through PW-1, but she did not support the prosecution case and she was declared hostile. The injured victim died on 25-11-1989 i.e. a week after the incident, out of septicaemia.
(3.)PW-5, the Civil Surgeon in Government Hospital, Erode spoke to the details of injuries caused by stabbing on the abdomen, right chest, right thigh, left ear and the bridge of the nose. The victim was conscious at the time he was brought to the hospital. He testified that the injuries could be caused by a weapon like MO 1 which is a sphere. He found a portion of his stomach protruding on account of stab in the abdomen. He stated that the septicaemia was developed on account of puss formation and infection of wounds. PW-5 also stated that as the wounds got infected, the death occurred and if it had not been infected, there was no chance of his death. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem is PW-6. He noticed stitched wounds on the dead body which tallied with the injuries spoken to by PW-5. He was also of the view that the death occurred by reason of onset of septicaemia. Ex. P9 is the post-mortem certificate.
(2.)According to prosecution, on the evening of 17-11-1989, the deceased went to the land close to his fields to fetch water from the bore well. When he found his elder brother i.e. the accused whistling at that place, he questioned him as to why he was whistling at a place frequented by ladies. The accused having got enraged at this, ran towards his hut; the deceased followed him and queried as to why he was running. Within a few minutes, he came out of his hut with a sphere, hiding himself alongside the adjoining corn-field and pounced on the deceased and stabbed him on his abdomen and chest. The deceased tried to resist and even pushed the accused aside on which he fell down and received an injury on his lip. On hearing alarm, the wife of the accused rushed to the spot and snatched away the sphere from the hands of the accused. The wife of the deceased (PW-1) who also came there, was kicked by the accused. The deceased was admitted in the Government Hospital, Erode in a serious condition at about 8 p.m. P. W. 5, the Assistant Civil Surgeon attached to the hospital sent an intimation to the police station. Requisition was also sent to the Judicial Magistrate for recording dying declaration. PW-9 the police constable came to the hospital at 9.30 p.m. and recorded the statement of the injured and on the basis of this statement, FIR was registered for an offence under Section 307 which was later on converted to Section 302, I. P. C. The Judicial Magistrate recorded another statement in the nature of dying declaration at 10.45 p.m. The dying declaration was recorded in the presence of the Doctor on duty who endorsed thereon that the patient was conscious while the statement was being recorded. In the dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate, he stated that the land dispute between him and his brother was the cause of the attack. The prosecution tried to elicit the details of this alleged land dispute to throw light on the motive aspect through PW-1, but she did not support the prosecution case and she was declared hostile. The injured victim died on 25-11-1989 i.e. a week after the incident, out of septicaemia.
(3.)PW-5, the Civil Surgeon in Government Hospital, Erode spoke to the details of injuries caused by stabbing on the abdomen, right chest, right thigh, left ear and the bridge of the nose. The victim was conscious at the time he was brought to the hospital. He testified that the injuries could be caused by a weapon like MO 1 which is a sphere. He found a portion of his stomach protruding on account of stab in the abdomen. He stated that the septicaemia was developed on account of puss formation and infection of wounds. PW-5 also stated that as the wounds got infected, the death occurred and if it had not been infected, there was no chance of his death. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem is PW-6. He noticed stitched wounds on the dead body which tallied with the injuries spoken to by PW-5. He was also of the view that the death occurred by reason of onset of septicaemia. Ex. P9 is the post-mortem certificate.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.