MUTHU v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 911

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: A.K. MATHUR, MARKANDEY KATJU

Case summary

MUTHU v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU.pdf

Judgment text

1'"""' MUTHU v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL NADU NOVEMBER 2, 2007 A [A. K. MATHUR AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ. } l . /' Penal Code; 1860; Exception 1 and 4 to Section 300, Ss. 302 and 304 Part-II: Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder-Deceased throwing rubbish into shop ofaccused-Accusedstabbedknife in chest ofdeceased-Deceased succumbed to injury-Trial Court found accused guilty ofcommitting offence punishable u/s. 302 JPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment-Affirmed by High Court-On J. >-- appeal, Held: Accused deprived ofpower ofself-control due to grave t and sudden provocation given by deceased-Accusedpicked up knife from table in the shop and was not carrying it, thus, accused had no intention/motive to cause death of the deceased-In the facts and under the circumstances ofthe case, accused entitled to benefit of Exception 1and4 to Section 300-Hence, offence covered underPart- II of S. 304 !

PC-Accordingly, sentence reduced to simple imprisonment ofjive years-Sentencing. According to the prosecution, on the fateful day, accusedappellant who was working in a waste paper merchant shop was ,r arranging the articles inside the shop. The deceased, who used to collect waste papers from the roadside threw the waste-papers inside the shop. On seeing this, the accused got angry and shouted at the deceased and pulled his hair. The deceased thereupon pushed the accused. Then the accused picked up a knife from the table in the - shop and stabbed the deceased in the chest, who fell down and ---1~· succumbed to the injury. The trial court found the accused guilty of committing offence punishable under S. 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The conviction and sentence was upheld by I ____,,, the High Court. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. 1. The case comes under Exception I to Section 300 IPC. [Para 5) [914-H; 915-A) 1. 2.

The accused was deprived ofthe power ofself-control by grave and sudden provocation which led him to commit the offence. [Para 6] (915-C] 1. 3. It is evidentthatthe accused had no motive or intention to cause the death ofthe deceased since the accused was not carrying the knife from before, and only picked it up during the scuffie with the deceased. [Para 6] [915-C] Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala, [2000] 10 SCC 307 and Masumsha Hasana. sha Musa/man v. State ofMaharashtra, (2000] 3 sec 557' relied on. J_ ( 1. 4. There is a clear distinction between a case ofpre-meditated attack with intention to cause death and a case where there was no such pre-meditated intention and death was caused inthe heat of the moment or-fit ofanger. during an altercation or quarrel. [Para 10] [916-B] Pulicherla Nagaraju v. State ofA. P. , [2006] 11 SCC 444, referred to. 1. 5.

No doubt, even in the heat of the moment or fit of anger one should not attack somebody since human beings are different from animals inasmuch as they have the power of self-control. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the heat ofthe moment and in a fit ofanger people some times do acts which may not have been done after premeditation. Hencethe. law provides that while those who commit acts in the heat ofthe moment or fit of anger should also be punished, their punishment should be lesser than that of premeditated offences. It is for. this reasonthat Exceptions I and 4 have been inserted in Section 300 IPC. [Para 11] [916-C-D] ~ MUTHU v. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TAMIL 913 NADU 1. 6. The present case also comes under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC since the ingredients ofException 4 are all satisfied in the facts of the present case. [Para 13] (916-G] Pappu v. State ofMP. , (2006) 7 SCC 391, referred to. J 1. 7.

Throwing waste and rubbish inside the house or shop of f somebody is certainly a grave and sudden provocation. Everyone. wishes to keep his premises neat and clean, and is likely to loose his self-control in such a situation. The incident in question occurred in a sudden fight and a heat of passion by a sudden quarrel without the appellant having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Hence the appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exceptions I and 4 and the case comes under Part-II ofSection 304 IPC. The instant case will come under the second part of Section 304 IPC. [Para 14) (916-H; 917-A-B] )... Ramesh Vithalrao Thakre andAnr. v. State ofMaharashtra, AIR • (1995) SC 1453; Sarup Singh v. State ofHaryana, AIR (1995) SC 2452; Mavila Thamban Nambiar v. State ofKera/a, AIR (1997) SC 687; Sudhir Samanta v. State of West Bengal and Anr. , AIR (1998) SC 289; K. Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State ofKera/a, AIR (1999) SC 1428; Tho/an v.

State ofTamil Nadu, (1984] 2 SCC 133; Jagpati v. State ofMadhya Pradesh, AIR (1993) SC 1360; Tarsem Singh and Ors. v. State ofPunjab, AIR (2002) SC 760; Hari Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR (1983) SC 185; Randhir Singh v. State ofPunjab, AIR (1982) SC 55; Kulwant Rai v. State ofPunjab, AIR (1982) SC 126 ( and Shankar v. $tate ofMadhya Pradesh, AIR (1979) SC 1532, relied ' on. 2. On the facts ofthe case the act committed was done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death but without any intention .... to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. J Hence the offence comes under the Part II of Section 304 IPC. -\' Accordingly, the sentence awarded by the courts below is substituted by the sentence offive years' simple imprisonment and any period ofincarceration in jail which the accused has already undergone shall ~.. be deducted from the aforesaid period offive years. [Paras 16 and 17] [917-E-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminai Appeal No.

1511 of2007. From the final Judgment and Order dated 20. 07. 2005 ofthe High ),_ -", Court ofJudicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 818 of 1999. K. K. Mani, C. K. R. Lenin Sekar and Mayur R. Shah for the Appellant. V. G. Pragasam, S. Joseph Aristotle and S. Prabhu Ramasubramanian for the Respondent. The Judgment ofthe Court was delivered by MARKANDEY KATJU, J. 1. Leave granted. . A, 2. This appeal has been filed against the final judgment and order 1 dated 20. 7. 2005 ofa Division Bench ofthe Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 818of1999. 3. The prosecution case is that on 9. 4. 1998 at about 8. A. M. , PWl Radhakrishnan, PW3 Sakthivel and PW4 Arurnugam went to a shop for taking tea. Next to the tea shop, a waste paper merchant shop was situated. Muthu, the accused (appellant herein) was working in that shop and after opening the shop he was arranging the articles kept inside the shop.

At that time, the_ deceased Siva who used to collect waste papers from the roadside, collected the waste-papers· and cardboard boxes and ~ threw them inside the shop ofthe accused. On seeing-this the accused got angry and shouted at Siva "why do you do this everyday? " and pulled his hair. The deceased thereupon pushed the accused. Then the accused took a knife from the top ofa table in the shop and stabbt;d Siva in the chest. Siva fell down due to this injury and died. ·' I ·1- 4. The trial court found the appellant guilty under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The aforesaid conviction and sentence was upheld by the High Court in appeal. Hence this appeal. 5. We are ofthe opinion that the case comes under Exception I to ~·· ' MUTHUv. STATEBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE, TAMIL 915 't- Section 300 IPC which states as under: "Exception 1. When culpable homicide is not murder.

Culpable homicide is not murder ifthe offender, whilst deprived ofthe power ofself-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the deatH of any other person by mistake or accident. . J f 6. We are satisfied that the accused was deprived ofthe power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation which led him to commit the offence. Ifrubbish is thrown into one's house or shop one would naturally get very upset. It is evident that the accused had no motive or intention to cause the death ofthe deceased since the accused was not carrying the knife from before, and only picked it up during the scuffle with the deceased. 7. We find support in our view from the decisions ofthis Court in Kunhayippu v. State of Kerala, [2000] 10 SCC 307 as well as fo ~ Masumsha Hasanasha Musa/man v. State ofMaharashtra, [2000) 3 ~ sec 557. 8.

The position may have been different ifright from the beginning the appellant accused had been carrying a knife with the intention to attack the deceased. But that is not the case here. 9. Learned counsel for the State relied on the decision in Pulicherla Nagaraju V. State ofA. P. , [2006] 11 sec 444. In that decision itselfit has been mentioned in paragraph 29 that whether there was an intenti~m to cause death is to be gathered from several circumstances, and one of J the circumstances mentioned in the said paragraph is whether the weap n was carried by the accused or was picked up from the spot. Ifit ·was carried by the accused right from the beginning that may be a circumstance to indicate that there was an intention to cause death ifit was used for attacking the deceased on a vital part ofthe body. However, when the weapon was not initially in the hand ofthe accused, but was picked up -.......

i:-· from the spot dUiing the altercation, then it cannot be said that it is c~e under Section 302 IPC, rather it is only a case ofculpable homicide not amoWlting to murder which comes Wlder Section 304 IPC and not Wlder Section 302 IPC. ~ 10. The observation ofthe court in the above decision that "it is for the courts to ensure that the cases of murder punishable under Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable under Section 304 Part I/II" cannot, in our opinion, be understood to mean that the court should somehow try to find out some way oftreating the offence to be under Section 302 IPC. In our opinion, there is a clear distinction between a case of pre-meditated attack with intention to cause death and a case A where there was no such pre-meditated intention and death was caused '"" in the heat ofthe moment or fit ofanger during an altercation or quarrel. 11.

No doubt, even in the heat of the moment or fit of anger one should not attack somebody since human beings are different from animals inasmuch as they have the power ofself-control. Nevertheless, the fact remains that in the heat ofthe moment and in a fit ofanger people some times do acts which may not have been done after premeditation. Hence the law provides that while those who commit acts in the heat of the moment or fit ofanger should also be punished, their punishment should --', be l~sser than that of premeditated offences. It is for this reason that { Exceptions I and 4 have been inserted in Section 300 IPC. 12. We may also refer to Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC which reads as under: "Ex. ception 4. - Culpable homicide is not murder ifit is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat ofpassion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner". 13.

The difference between Exception I and Exception 4 to Section 300 has been explained by this Court in Pappu v. State ofMP. , [2006] SCC 391. In our opinion, the present case also comes under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC since the ingredients ofException 4 are all satisfied in the facts ofthe prese! lt case. t: 14. In our opinion, throwing waste and rubbish inside the house or ·--rshop ofsomebody is certainly a grave and sudden provocation: Everyone wishes to keep his premises neat and clean, and is likely to loose his selfcontrol in such a situation. The incident in question occurred in a sudden ' \-- MUTHU v. STATEBYINSPECTOROFPOLICE, TAMIL 917 fight and a heat ofpassion by a sudden quarrel without the appellant having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Hence the appellant is entitled to the benefit ofExceptions I and 4 and the case comes under Section 304 IPC. 15.

The next question is whether the case will come under the first part or the second part of Section 304 IPC. In our opinion it will cdme ~ > under the second part in view ofthe decisions ofthis Court in Ramesh Vithalrao Thakre and Anr. v. State ofMaharashtra, AIR (1995) SC 1453, Sarup Singh v. State ofHaryana, AIR (1995) SC 2452, MaVila Thamban Nambiar v. State of Kera/a, AIR (1997) SC 687, Sudhir Samanta v. State of West Bengal and Anr. , AIR (1998) SC 289, K Ramakrishnan Unnithan v. State of Kerala, AIR (1999) SC 14! 28, Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1984] 2 SCC 133, Jagpati v. State ofMadhya Pradesh, AIR (1993) SC 1360, Tarsem Singh and Ors. v. State ofPunjab, AIR (2002) SC 760, Hari Ram v. State ofHaryana, AIR (1983) SC 185, Randhir Singh v. State ofPunjab, AIR (1982) ... ~ SC 55, Ku/want Rai v. State of Punjab, AIR (1982) SC 126 and Shankar v. State ofMadhya Pradesh, AIR (1979) SC 1532. 16.

In our opinion on the facts ofthe case the act committed was done withthe knowledge it is likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death or cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. , Hence the offence comes under the Part II of Section 304 IPC. ~ 17. For the reasons given above, the sentence awarded by tl:e cotμts below is substituted by the sentence of five years' simple imprisonment and any period of incarceration in jail which the accused has already f undergone shall be deducted from the aforesaid period offive years. Tue judgments ofthe courts below are modified accordingly and the appeal stands disposed off. 18. Ifthe appellant is on bail, his bail bonds shall stand cancelled. He shall surrender forthwith to serve out the remaining part ofthe sentence. I-. t --, S. K. S. Appeal Partly allowed.