/2023 INSC 0087/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S).           OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No(s). 178 of 2020)
SURESH ….APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The   instant   appeal   is   directed   against  the   judgment   dated   6 th
November,   2018   affirming   conviction   of   the   accused   appellant
under   Sections   302   and   449   of   the   Indian   Penal   Code,   1860
(hereinafter   being   referred   to   as   the   “IPC”)   and   sentenced   to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay
a fine of Rs.5000/­ for the offence punishable Section 449 IPC and
to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/­ for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
1

3. Limited   notice   was   issued   by   this   Court   with   respect   to   the
sentence   awarded   taking   note   of   the   submission   of   the   learned
counsel   for   the   appellant   that   whether   the   case   falls   within   the
contours  of   Section  304  Part­I   IPC   and   not  under   Section   302   IPC
which reveals from the Order dated 8 th
 January, 2020.
4. The   case   of   the   prosecution   is   that   at   the   time   of   alleged
incident,   victim   Devarajan,   husband   of   PW­13,   was   residing   in
quarter   no.  109  of   Siruvani   Estate.     The   incident  happened   within
the dwelling house of both victim Devarajan and PW­13 (wife of the
victim).  The appellant was found guilty of murder mainly based on
the oral evidence tendered by PW­13 wife of the deceased, the eye­
witness   of   the   alleged   incident,   the   corroboration   given   by   PW­14
who had given FIS and the oral evidence of PW­1, besides the injury
sustained by the appellant in the alleged incident and the recovery
of weapon used for commission of offence.
5.   The   learned   Sessions   Judge,   in   the   first   instance,   found   the
appellant   guilty   and   punished   him   for   offence   punishable   under
Sections   302  and   449   IPC   and   sentenced   him   to   undergo   rigorous
imprisonment   for   a   period   of   five   years   and   to   pay   a   fine   of
2

Rs.5,000/­ for the offence punishable under Section 449 IPC and to
undergo   imprisonment   for   life   and   to   pay   a   fine   of   Rs.   5000/­   for
the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
6. The   injuries   alleged   to   have   been   sustained   by   the   victim
which are noted as ante­mortem injury nos.1 to 13 in Ext P6 post­
mortem examination report, are as follows:­
“B. INJURIES ANTEMORTEM : 
1.  Contusion 2.5x2.5x1 cm on the outer aspect of right forehead
inner   lower   extend   at   the   right   eyebrow   and   5   cm   outer   to
midline. 
2.  Contusion  7x3x2cm  obliquely  placed  on  the right  side  of  face
over   the   cheek   region   incorporating   a   lacerated   wound
1x0.5x0.2   cm   obliquely   placed   and   parallel   to   the   contusion
on its lower portion. Its lower extend 6 cm above lower border
of jawbone and 7 cm outer to midline. 
3.  Abrasion   0.5x0.5   cm   right   side   of   forehead   4   cm   above   right
eyebrow and 1 cm outer to midline. 
4.  Abraded   contusion   1.5x0.5x0.2   cm   over   the   outer   and   top
aspect of helix of left pinna of left ear. 
5.  Abraded contusion 1x1x0.3 cm over the left side of neck 1 cm
below the ear. 
6.  Lacerated   wound   2x0.2   cm   bone   deep   obliquely   placed   over
the left side and back of head with surrounding abrasion over
an   area   2x1   cm   its   inner   lower   end   2.5   cm   above   external
occipital protuberance and 3 cm outer to midline. 
On   dissection   and   reflecting   the   scalp,   a   contusion   11x3   cm
involving   the  full   thickness   of   scalp,   obliquely   placed   underneath,
upper inner extend at left parietal prominence. Another contusion
13x8   cm   over   the   left   parieto   temporal   region   involving   its   full
thickness,   lower   extent   at   left   ear,   the   left   temporalis   muscle
underneath was contused. Another contusion 4x3 cm right parieto
temporal region, lower extend 2 cm above right ear. The temporalis
3

muscle   underneath   was  contused   involving   its   full  thickness.   The
skull was intact, on removing the top of skull, the dura was found
stretched   and   bulging.   Thin   subarachnoid   haemorrhage   seen
bilaterally   over   right   and   left   parieto   temporal   region.   Brain   was
congested and oedematous. 
7.  Abrasion 1.5x0.5 cm transversely placed on left side of root of
neck,   front   end   11   cm   outer   to   midline   and   12   cm   below
mastoid bone tip. 
8.  Contusion   22x12­30   cm   bone   deep   on   the   back   of   chest
across   midline   upper   extent   13   cm   below   root   of   neck.
Contusions   seen   more   over   the   right   side.   Underneath   the
right   ribs   9,   10,   11   were   fractured   on   the   back   aspect   and   7
cm   outer   to   midline   with   surrounding   blood   infiltration   over
an area 12x12 cm involving  the intercostal muscles. Fracture
dislocation   noted   at   left   10th   rib   on   the   back   aspect   with
surrounding   infiltration   of   blood.   Right   lung   showed   a
contusion 8x4x0.5 cm on the back aspect of right lower lobe. 
9.  Abrasion 0.5x0.5 cm  right  side of sacral region 3 cm  outer  to
midline and 6 cm above gluteal cleft. 
10.  Abrasion 6x5 cm outer aspect of right hip upper extend 2 cm
below top of hip and 12 cm outer to midline. 
11.  Abrasion   1x0.2   cm   obliquely   placed   outer   aspect   of   right
upper arm lower end 7 cm above right elbow. 
12.  Two abrasions over an area 2.5x1 cm separated by a distance
of   0.5   cm   over   the   back   aspect   of   right   upper   arm   its   lower
extend 4 cm above right elbow. 
13.  Abrasion   1x1   cm   back   aspect   of   right   forearm   2   cm   below
right elbow.”
7. The medical evidence adduced by PW­7 shows that injury nos.
6 and 8 are caused possibly by hitting with MOI stone.  Injury no. 6
is   on   the   head   and   injury   no.   8   is   on   the   back   of   chest.     It   also
reveals   from  the   post­mortem   report   that   the   heavy   grinding   stone
was   used   for   the   commission   of   offence   and   the   pressure   was
4

applied   while   inflicting   injury   on   the   body   of   the   victim,   that   too
over the vital parts, head and chest.
8. A strict scrutiny of the oral evidence tendered by PW­13 would
show that there is no embellishment but what is narrated by her is
the   true   version   of   what   she   had   experienced   on   the   alleged   date
and  time of the incident.    She had given  a narration of  the  alleged
incident   which   is   having   two   separate   episodes.     The   first   one   is
that the accused came to her house and as usual picked up quarrel
with her husband and they fought with each other at the verandah
of   the   house.     It   is   also   spoken   by   her   that   during   the   course   of
quarrel between the appellant and the victim, the victim gave a stab
injury to the appellant.   On receiving the stab injury, the appellant
went  away   from  her   house.    The second  episode, according  to  her,
started   when   PW­13   and   her   husband   were   sleeping   in   their
dwelling   house,   the   accused   appellant   stealthily   entered   into   the
house   with   a   wooden   stick   and   took   a   country   grinding   stone   and
hit on the victim’s head.  He had also attacked PW­13 by beating on
her cheek and body and she fell down.   The appellant again hit on
5

victim’s   head   with   the   country   grinding   stone   and   then   left   the
place.
9. PW­14   who   had   given   Ext   P1   (FIS)   supported   the   version   of
PW­13.  According to him, by morning, PW­13 approached him and
had disclosed the death of her husband.   PW­14 went to the place
of occurrence and had seen the dead body of the victim lying on the
floor of the quarters (dwelling house of the victim).  Immediately, he
went to the police station and had given Ext. P1 (FIS) and caused to
register FIR.
10. On   consideration   of   the   prosecution   evidence   and   of   PW­13
which is supported by PW­14 in particular, we are of the view that
the   death   of   the   victim   was   not   caused   in   the   heat   of   the   sudden
fight   and   it   was   a   case   of   murder   under   Section   302   IPC   and   not
under   any   exceptions   of   Section   300   IPC.     Further,   the   appellant
has rightly been convicted under Sections 302 and 449 IPC.
11. Consequently, the appeal fails and accordingly dismissed.
12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
6

……………………..J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
………………………J.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI)
NEW DELHI;
FEBRUARY 14, 2023
7