REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1501 OF 2010

(Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 7536/2009)

MAYANDI Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

STATE REP.BY INSP.OF POLICE Respondent(s)

O R D E R

Leave granted.

We had issued notice only with regard to the

nature of the offence on 14

th

September 2009.

We have heard the learned counsel for both

parties.

The brief facts necessary for the disposal of

this appeal are as under:

The appellant was an employee working in the

kitchen of Palmgrove Hotel, Chennai. At about 6.15 a.m. on 8

th

February 2005, the deceased Tr. Manickaraja Bala, the

Managing Director of the hotel, came to the store room for

carrying out a store check. As the deceased was returning to

his office after checking the store, the appellant

-2-

attacked him with a sickle which he had concealed on his

person. When the deceased tried to escape, the appellant

made a further attack on him and caused him several injuries

on his body and on his hands as well. PW.1-Tr. Raghavendran,

PW.3-P.S.R. Aziri, PW.4-Tr. Pravin Padival who were around

the place came rushing to the rescue the deceased but the

appellant nevertheless ran away from the spot. PW.2, PW.4

and several others then took the deceased to the Apollo

hospital where he was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit.

A FIR was thereafter recorded for an offence

punishable under Sections 307 etc. of the I.P.C. and on the

death of the injured at about 3.30 a.m. on 9

th

February 2005

the case was altered to one under Section 302 etc. of the

IPC.

The Trial Court on a consideration of the

evidence convicted the appellant for an offence punishable

under Sections 302, 506 (II) and 341 of the IPC. This

judgment was maintained by the High Court as well. It is in

this situation that the matter is before us today.

Mr. R.Shunmugham Sundram, the learned senior

counsel for the appellant has pointed out that a bare perusal

of the injuries, the post-mortem report and the evidence of

the Doctor would show that the injuries caused by the

appellant were not the cause of his death and he had in fact

died of Myocardial Infarction leading to heart failure. He

-3-

has further submitted that the fact that the deceased was

already a heart patient and had undergone angioplasty was a

fact not within the knowledge of the appellant and in this

view of the matter a case under Section 302 IPC was not spelt

out.

Mr. R. Sunderavardan, the learned senior

counsel for the respondent has however pointed out that even

assuming that the immediate cause of death was the Myocardial

Infarction and not the injuries caused to the deceased but in

the light of the admitted fact that the appellant was an

employee of the hotel of which the deceased was the Managing

Director and that very severe injuries had indeed been caused

with a sickle, required that the appellant would be

punishable under Section 304 Part-I, IPC.

We have considered the arguments advanced by

the learned counsel.

We reproduce the injuries found on the dead

body of the deceased at the time of the post-mortem.

“Bandage seen over left forearm

and right forearm below right below. Elastocreps

bandage seen on top of left shoulder, Front of

chest and back of chest.

-4-

An Elastocreps bandage on the

right side of the neck.

1Left shoulder – on removal of

plaster:

2

3A stapled sutured wound seen on

the front of outer third of lest

chest (crossing top of the outer

as aspect of the left shoulder)

extending up to outer aspect of

back of left side chest. The

total length is 16 cms.

1A metallic wire is seen on the

outer aspect of the left

shoulder – 4 cm long on removal

of the sutures (staples) the

acromio-calvicular joint was

fixed with a tension bank wire.

The surrounding soft tissues

were found repaired 16 x 1.5 cm

x bone deep.

2

32. Right hand – curved sutured

would seen over the right palm

extending from the volar aspect of

the right wrist passing through

the right thenar eminence

extending to the base of right

thumb on the dorsal aspect. The

total length is 18 c.m.

-5-

1- On removal of sutures the

margins are regular -

2

3On further dissection the

underlying muscles of the right

thumb, nerves, blood vessels

were found repaired 18 x 3 cms.

Muscle deep.

4

53. A sutured wound on the palmer

aspect of the left thumb in the

middle third,A curved sutured

would seen over the left thenar

eminence 6 cm Long. On removal

of the sutures the margins are

clean out, the underlying

muscles found repaired 6 x 2 cm

x muscle deep.

6

7HEART

8An old vertical midline scar 18 cm Long seen

in the midline of chest extending down

from the suprasternal notch. On opening

the thorax the underlying sternum was

found sutured with stainless steel wire

(old) on further dissection the heart was

found grossly enlarged with increase in

pericardial fat.

9

10On dissection of the heart massive

atheromatous changes seen in the root of

aorta. Coronary artery by pass site made

out and stend in situ. Heart sent for

Histopathological examination. Coronary

vessels found narrowed.”

-6-

PW.13 also noted that the deceased had died due to

complications arising out of Myocardial infarction and

admitted that in the post-mortem report there was no

suggestion that the death was a result of the injuries.

The learned counsel has also brought to our

notice the death summary (Ext.p.8) which had been recorded in

Apollo hospital by the attending Doctor (PW.8) who stated

that as the deceased had lost a great deal of blood as the

blood vessels had been cut and complications had arisen on

account of his age (which was about 70 years) and was

already a heart patient, the cause of death was:

Coronary Artery disease :

Acute Coronary Syndrome, Post Coronary

Revascularisation status, practical post, Coronary

artery bypass and post stent. Post-hand surgery

status and Diabetes mellitus. Since he was already

having heart disease bypass surgery had been done

to him. Afterwards heart trouble had occurred to

him.”

Keeping

in mind

the said

facts

the High

Court

observed

that:

“In view of the above

categorical evidence of PW.8 and PW.13, we are of

the considered view that though it had been stated

in Post Mortem report that the death was due to

the

-7-

complications of Myocardial Infarction, such

complications is directly attributed to the

injuries inflicted by the accused which resulted

in interruption of the free flow of the blood not

only to the various vital organs but also the

heart and therefore the contention of the learned

Senior counsel for the accused is liable to be

rejected and accordingly the same is rejected.”

We have considered the reasons given by the

High Court and also considered the evidence above referred.

It is the admitted fact that the Doctors have

not opined that the death was caused due to the injuries

caused by the appellant. There is also no evidence to show

that the injuries could have independently caused the death

of the deceased even if the deceased had not been suffering

from a heart problem. It is also the conceded position that

the deceased had a serious heart problem which was matter not

within the appellant's knowledge and on the contrary the

medical evidence reveals that he had undergone an

angioplasty but had nevertheless suffered a heart attack

thereafter.

In this background the High Court's

assertion that the death was occasioned by complications on

account of the injuries caused by the appellant is not quite

accurate. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the case

would fall within Section 326 of the IPC and not under

Section 302 of the IPC thereof.

-8-

Mr. R. Sundravardan's argument that this

matter would nevertheless fall within Section 304 Part-I or

Part -II of the IPC, is also rejected as there was no

intention on the part of appellant to cause the death of the

deceased nor could he be attributed with the knowledge that

death would be caused.

We accordingly partly allow this appeal, set

aside the acquittal and conviction of the appellant for the

offence under Section 302 of the IPC, and alter his

conviction to one under Section 326 of the IPC and award a

sentence of 10 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in

default thereof, six months R.I. The sentence under the

other provisions of the IPC is maintained.

The appeal is allowed in the above terms.

.................J.

(HARJIT SINGH BEDI)

.................J.

(C.K. PRASAD)

New Delhi;

July 28, 2010.