MANOKARAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)MR . J.A. Syed Abdul Khader, Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Home Department, Chennai is present in terms of the earlier orders of
this Court. Mr. Khader regrets that unfortunately a practice has grown in the
State of Tamil Nadu to act in the fashion as it has been effected in the matter
under consideration. Mr. Khader, however, assures this Court that in future
the State Government would act strictly according to the requirements of the
statute and not dehors. The question of continuity of there being any practice
being followed henceforth would not arise and the same has been discarded
by the State Government.
(2.)THE appellant herein being the first accused in Sessions Case No. 93 of 1989 on the file of the Vlth Additional Sessions Judge, Madras was tried along with ten others. The fact situation of the matter in issue has been very
succinctly dealt with by the High Court in para 13 of the judgment:
"13. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place at about 12.30 p.m. and it was witnessed by PWs 1 to 4. PWs 1 to 4 have sustained injuries at the time of occurrence. It is the case of all these witnesses that at 12.15 p.m. when the dead body of tailor Munusamy was taken in a procession through N.M.K. Street and Pachaikkal Veerasamy Street, PW 5 asked all the shopkeepers to close their shops apprehending some trouble since some of the processionists were dancing. A-1 appeared at the scene and questioned the processionists as to who they are to ask the shopkeepers to close their shops in his locality and cut the deceased with MO 3, a knife. When the witnesses intervened, PW 1 was cut by A-1 and PWs 2 to 4 were cut by A-2. In respect of the incident which took place at 12.30 p.m., a complaint was also laid with PW 17, the Sub-Inspector of Police, at 12.45 p.m. i.e. within 15 minutes of the incident. Immediately, the injured were referred to the hospital where the duty doctor, PW 12 started examining the injured from 1.00 p.m."
It is on this set of facts the accused persons faced trial before the learned Sessions Judge. Four injured witnesses were examined as
eyewitnesses and the incident herein brought about unfortunate end of the
deceased Nagaiah. The post-mortem report found a stab injury on the left
side of the root of the neck 1 cm lateral to the lateral border of the left
sternomastoid muscle 4 cm x 1 cm x 4 cm clear-cut margins. Blood clots
were present dark red in colour pointing downwards and medially. In the
opinion of the doctor the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to the
stab injuries sustained by him and the stab injuries were otherwise sufficient
to cause death. The learned Sessions Judge thought it fit to pass an order of
acquittal as regards A-3 to A-11 but convicted A-1 and A-2; whereas A-2 was
convicted under S. 324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, A-1 was convicted
under S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 with a punishment for life
imprisonment. A-2, however, has served the sentence and now stands
released from the jail. This appeal is thus by A-1 before this Court.
(3.)THE learned advocate appearing in support of the appeal rather strenuously contended that the High Court was in manifest error by reason of
not considering Exception 4 to S. 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It has been
contended that as a matter of fact there was a sudden quarrel and fight and
the accused was persuaded by the exigencies of the situation to take steps and
while taking steps unfortunately the injury stood suffered by the victim.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.