Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
In this case of KARUPPANNA GOUNDER VERSUS THE STATE REP. BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, an appeal was filed in the Supreme court challenging the decision of the Madras High Court, whereby conviction of the appellant no.1 under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) has been upheld. Since appellant No.2 has died during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal shall stand abated in so far as appellant no.2 is concerned. In this case the deceased Chinnappa Gounder was the neighbour of the first accused. They both had adjacent landed properties and shared a common boundary. There was a common well on this boundary which was also divided between the appellant no.1 and the deceased. A dividing wall was there in the well.
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 son-in-law 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. 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 soninlaw 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 and 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 guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the trial court found A1Karuppanna 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. 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 sickle. Since the injury was a lacerated wound, the High Court held that it could not have been caused by a sharp-edged 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. The case subsequently reached supreme court, the supreme court after hearing the case held “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.”
86540
103860
630
114
59824