Puttan Alias Ellappan Vs. State of T.N.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 566 of 1998)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 566 of 1998)
Petitioner: Puttan Alias Ellappan
Respondent: State of T.N.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2000
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 566 of 1998)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (CRL.) No. 566 of 1998)
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & M.B. SHAH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 07, 2000
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 101 to 104 with 304 Part I – Private defence – Wrangling between father of appellant and deceased – Father calling his son – Wife of deceased interfered – Accused giving club blow – Then accused/appellant going and bringing knife – As many as 8 injuries inflicted to deceased. Held that all barriers of private defence were crossed. Convic-tion altered to Section 304 Pt.I. Sentenced to 8 years impris-onment. (Para 4)
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Sections 101 to 104 with 304 Part I – Private defence – Wrangling between father of appellant and deceased – Father calling his son – Wife of deceased interfered – Accused giving club blow – Then accused/appellant going and bringing knife – As many as 8 injuries inflicted to deceased. Held that all barriers of private defence were crossed. Convic-tion altered to Section 304 Pt.I. Sentenced to 8 years impris-onment. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The facts of this case would show that the incident started when deceased operated the disputed water course to which objection was raised by the appellant and his father. When the water course was meddled with by the deceased, prosecution case is that appellant and his father (co-accused) attacked the de-ceased. This was followed by a wrangle between the deceased and the co-accused (father of the appellant) as they grappled between each other.
3. Father then called his son, the appellant for the assis-tance. When wife of the deceased interfered, the appellant gave her a blow with a Club. Thereafter, appellant went and procured a lethal weapon (knife) and inflicted as many as 8 injuries on the deceased to which he succumbed.
4. The above description of the occurrence shows that appellant might have had a right of private defence of his property to start with but the procurement of the lethal weapon and the number of injuries inflicted by him would show that he has crossed all the frontiers of the right of private defence. We, therefore, alter the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. We sentence him to undergo rigorous impris-onment for a period of 8 years (considering the number of inju-ries inflicted by him).
5. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
1. Leave granted.
2. The facts of this case would show that the incident started when deceased operated the disputed water course to which objection was raised by the appellant and his father. When the water course was meddled with by the deceased, prosecution case is that appellant and his father (co-accused) attacked the de-ceased. This was followed by a wrangle between the deceased and the co-accused (father of the appellant) as they grappled between each other.
3. Father then called his son, the appellant for the assis-tance. When wife of the deceased interfered, the appellant gave her a blow with a Club. Thereafter, appellant went and procured a lethal weapon (knife) and inflicted as many as 8 injuries on the deceased to which he succumbed.
4. The above description of the occurrence shows that appellant might have had a right of private defence of his property to start with but the procurement of the lethal weapon and the number of injuries inflicted by him would show that he has crossed all the frontiers of the right of private defence. We, therefore, alter the conviction to Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. We sentence him to undergo rigorous impris-onment for a period of 8 years (considering the number of inju-ries inflicted by him).
5. Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
