{"id":117436,"date":"2006-08-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-08-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006"},"modified":"2016-12-24T16:20:11","modified_gmt":"2016-12-24T10:50:11","slug":"krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006","title":{"rendered":"Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: Raveendran<\/div>\n
Bench: G P Mathur, R V Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  631 of 2000\n\nPETITIONER:\nKrishnan\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Tamil Nadu\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/08\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nG P Mathur & R V Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
RAVEENDRAN, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and
\norder dated 10.2.2000 of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal
\nNo.571\/1989. The appellant and his son Samivel were accused 1 and 2
\nin Sessions Case No.139\/1987 on the file of the Sessions Judge, South
\nArcot district. The appellant was tried for the offence of murdering his
\nelder brother Rathina Gounder. The appellant and his son Samivel
\nwere also charged with the offence of causing hurt to Elumalai (son of
\nthe deceased). The trial court vide judgment dated 27.4.1989
\nconvicted the appellant under section 302 IPC, and sentenced him to
\nundergo life imprisonment. The trial court also convicted both the
\nappellant and his son Samivel under section 323 IPC and sentenced
\nthem to 3 months’ rigorous imprisonment. In a separate proceeding, in
\nSC.No.140\/1987, Sekar, the juvenile son of the appellant, was also
\nfound guilty for causing hurt to Elumalai and was ordered to be
\ndetained in a juvenile home for six months.\n<\/p>\n
2.\tFeeling aggrieved, the appellant and his first son Samivel filed
\nCrl.A. No.571\/1989 and Sekar filed a separate appeal in Crl.A.
\nNo.629\/1989. Both appeals were disposed of by the High Court by a
\ncommon judgment dated 10.2.2000. Criminal Appeal No.571\/1989
\nwas allowed in part. The conviction and sentence imposed on the
\nappellant under section 302 was set aside and instead, he was
\nconvicted for the offence punishable under section 304, Part II, IPC,
\nand sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years. The conviction and sentence
\nof the appellant and his son Samivel under section 323 was not
\ndisturbed. Criminal A.No.629\/1989 filed by the appellant’s juvenile son
\nSekar was allowed and he was acquitted. Aggrieved by his conviction
\nunder section 304, Part II, the appellant has filed this appeal,
\ncontending that he ought to have been acquitted by accepting his plea
\nof self-defence.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe prosecution case, in brief, was as follows :\n<\/p>\n
3.1)\tThe appellant and his elder brother Rathina Gounder were
\nresiding with their respective families in two adjoining portions, with a
\ncommon open yard in front of their houses. The appellant used to
\ntether his bullocks in the common yard. There was also an open
\nsewage drain in the common yard. To prevent pigs coming to the drain
\nand causing nuisance, Rathina Gounder’s wife Kasiammal covered the
\nsaid drain with thorn sticks on or about 5th or 6th of June, 1997. The
\nappellant removed the thorn sticks as they came in the way of
\ntethering his bullocks. There was a simmering discord for about 3 days
\nabout the thorn fencing of the drain between the families of the two
\nbrothers, that is, Rathina Gounder, his wife Kasiammal and his son
\nElumalai on the one hand, and appellant (Krishnan) and his two sons
\nSamivel and Sekar on the other.\n<\/p>\n
3.2)\tOn 9.6.1987 at about 5 p.m., the appellant removed the thorn
\nsticks which had been placed by Kasiammal. Elumalai (PW-1) put back
\nthe thorn sticks in place. At about 8 p.m., the appellant again removed
\nthe thorn sticks and tethered his bullocks. Rathina Gounder who saw
\nthe thorn sticks being removed, came and replaced the thorn sticks
\nover the drain. The appellant again removed them. The action of
\nRathina Gounder placing the thorn sticks over the drain and the
\nappellant removing them, went on for a while and a quarrel developed.
\nThe appellant told Rathina Gounder “You are always doing like this. I
\nwill see.” and took one of the thorn sticks lying on the ground and hit
\nRathina Gounder on his head. When the appellant tried to hit Rathina
\nGounder with the thorn stick for a second time, his son Elumalai tried
\nto intervene and received the blow causing injury to his right palm.
\nThereafter the appellant pushed Rathina Gounder who fell down and a
\nprotruding stone pierced near the arm-pit. The appellant again hit
\nElumalai on his forehead with the thorn stick. His two sons Samivel
\nand Sekar also hit Elumalai. Thereafter, appellant and his two sons ran
\naway. Elumalai collected the thorn stick dropped by the appellant and
\nkept it. By then it was about 10 P.M.\n<\/p>\n
3.3)\tRathina Gounder was taken to Thirukovilur Government Hospital.
\nDr. Bhaskaran (PW-3) examined him and referred him for further
\ntreatment to Cuddalore Government Hospital. However, Kasiammal
\nand others took Rathina Gounder to Jipmer Hospital, Pondicherry
\nwhere Rathina Gounder succumbed to his injuries on 12.6.1987 at
\nabout 12.45 p.m.        <\/p>\n
3.4)\tElumalai also got himself examined at Thirukovilur Government
\nHospital. When he was in the said hospital, on 10.6.1997 at about
\n6.00 A.M., the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Arakandanathur
\nPolice Station came and enquired about the incident and recorded his
\ncomplaint.\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe prosecution examined 13 witnesses. Elumalai (PW-1),
\nThangaraj (PW-2), Pitchaimuthu (PW-4) and Kasiammal (PW-5) were
\nthe eye-witnesses. Elumalai, son of the deceased was an injured eye-
\nwitness. Kasiammal was the widow of the deceased, Thangaraj was
\nthe nephew of both Rathina Gounder and the appellant, Thangaraj and
\nPitchaimuthu were neighbours. All the four eye-witnesses narrated the
\nincident broadly in accordance with the prosecution case. They also
\nstated that as there was a street-light nearby they could see what
\nhappened clearly. M. Subramaniam Pillai (PW-9) was the Panchayat
\nPresident who had switched on the street light opposite Rathina
\nGounder’s house, which had lit up the area when the incident took
\nplace.\n<\/p>\n
Dr. Bhaskaran (PW-3) had examined the deceased and his son
\nElumalai for their injuries at Thirukovilur Government Hospital and
\nissued the injury certificates (Ex. P-2 & P-3). Atul Murari (PW-6),
\nAssociate Professor of Forensic Medicine, Jipmer Hospital, Pondichery,
\nconducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased. Both doctors
\nopined that death occurred on account of the head injury (lacerated
\nwound of scalp 3cm X 1cm X bone deep over the vault. PW-6 stated
\nthat the corresponding internal injury was separation of coronal suture
\nextending literally on the right side of temporal region, total length of
\nthe fracture being 13 cm, extra-dual haematoma  in the right temporal
\nregion and generalized subsural and subarachnoid haemorrhage. PW-6
\nhas opined that the head injury with corresponding internal injuries
\nwere sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.\n<\/p>\n
Sheikh Kani (PW-12) was the Sub-Inspector of Police at
\nArakandanallur Police Station who recorded the statement of Elumalai
\nand registered Crime No. 196 of 1987 and prepared the FIR, sketch  of
\nthe place of occurrence  (Ex.P16) and drew the Mahazar (Ex. P-13). He
\nalso seized the thorn stick of three feet length used by the appellant
\n(MO No.1) and collected blood stained soil from the spot (MO. No.3).
\nHe also recorded the statement of Kasiammal and other witnesses. He
\nstated that he arrested the appellant on 11.6.1986 at 6 A.M. G.
\nJagadeesan (PW-13) was the Investigating Officer, who took over the
\ninvestigation on 13.6.1987 at 2.00 P.M. PW-7 to 11 were formal
\nwitnesses.\n<\/p>\n
5.\tThe trial court found that the evidence of the four eye-witnesses
\n(PWs.1, 2, 4 and 5) clearly established that the appellant hit Rathina
\nGounder on the head with the thorn stick during his quarrel with
\nRathina Gounder. The trial court rejected the case of self-defence put
\nforth by the appellant for the following reasons :\n<\/p>\n
a)\tThere was no evidence to show that the appellant was injured
\nduring the incident.\n<\/p>\n
b)\tThe appellant did not state in his statement under section 313
\nIPC, that he hit Rathina Gounder in self defence, to avoid danger
\nto his life.\n<\/p>\n
c)\tThe appellant did not establish that he gave a complaint to
\nArakandanallur Police Station in regard to the attack by Rathina
\nGounder and Elumalai, as no such complaint was recorded in the
\nsaid Police Station.\n<\/p>\n
The trial court further held that the appellant had acted with the
\nintention of causing bodily injury to Rathina Gounder and such bodily
\ninjury inflicted by him being sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
\nto cause death, he was guilty of culpable homicide amounting to
\nmurder under section 300 (Thirdly) of IPC. Consequently, the
\nappellant was convicted under section 302 IPC. The trial court also
\nheld that the evidence of the four eye witnesses clearly established
\nthat the appellant and his two sons had hit Elumalai (PW-1) and
\nconsequently, convicted them under section 323 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tThe High Court affirmed the finding that Rathina Gounder died
\nas a result of the head injury caused by the Appellant, by hitting him
\non the head with the thorn stick. It also held that the evidence of
\nPWs.-1, 2, 4 and 5, that the appellant suddenly picked up the thorn
\nstick lying nearby during a quarrel and hit the deceased as also the
\nfact that the appellant did not come to the place of occurrence with
\nany weapon, established that there was no pre-determined or pre-
\nmeditated plan or intention on the part of the appellant to cause the
\ndeath of the deceased or cause any bodily injury as is likely to cause
\ndeath; and that the appellant had hit the deceased with the knowledge
\nthat his act of hitting the deceased on his head was likely to cause
\ndeath. The High Court was of the view that the thorn stick used (of
\nabout three feet length) was not a dangerous weapon. Consequently,
\nit held that the appellant had to be convicted under section 304 Part
\nII, IPC and not section 302 IPC and sentenced him to five years
\nrigorous imprisonment. It did not disturb the conviction and sentence
\nunder section 323 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
7.\tThe said decision of the High Court is under challenge in this
\nappeal. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the High
\nCourt did not consider the plea of self-defence though specifically
\nraised. We find that the entire Memorandum of Appeal before the High
\nCourt concentrated and revolved upon the plea of self-defence. The
\ngrounds referred to the evidence of PW 2 Thangaraj and the several
\ncircumstances, which the appellant relied on to make out a case of self
\ndefence. The High Court ought to have considered the said plea which
\ngoes to the root of the matter.\n<\/p>\n
8.\tA perusal of the cross-examination of PW-1, PW-2, PW-4 and
\nPW-5 and the statement under section 313 clearly shows that the
\nappellant had put forth the following pleas of self-defence : That
\nRathina Gounder and his wife and son were jealous  of the appellant as
\nhe was maintaining bullocks and cultivating the land; that therefore,
\nthey were trying to obstruct the tethering of his bullocks in the
\ncommon yard by putting thorn sticks in that place; that there was no
\ndrain\/gutter in the common yard and therefore, the question of
\ncovering any drain by thorn sticks did not arise; that the thorns were
\npricking his bullocks and making it difficult for him to tether his cattle;
\nthat whenever he removed the thorns and tethered his cattle, Rathina
\nGounder and his son Elumalai were threatening that they will assault
\nhim and kill him; that on the date of incident, Rathina Gounder and his
\nfamily had thrown thorny sticks next to the bullocks tethered by the
\nappellant, the said thorns were pricking the cattle and made it difficult
\nfor the cattle to lie down; that, therefore, he went and removed the
\nthorn; sticks; that at that time, Elumalai (PW-1) came and held his
\nneck and Rathina Gounder came and held his hair-locks; that when he
\ntried to release himself, Rathina Gounder bit him next to the right
\nthumb and blood started oozing out; that Rathina Gounder and
\nElumalai also took a stick each and slashed towards his head; that he
\nraised his hands to cover his head, and that the blows fell on both his
\nelbows resulting in lacerated wounds. The appellant also stated that
\nfearing for his life, he ran away and went to the Arakandanallur Police
\nStation around 12 O’clock mid night and explained what happened and
\nshowed his wounds. The Sub-Inspector asked him to give a complaint
\nand he got a complaint written and gave it.  The Sub-Inspector took it
\nand stated that he has to go out; that he came back around 2 A.M. in
\nthe morning; that   within a short time, Rathina Gounder, Elumalai,
\nKasiammal and some others came to the Police Station and the Sub-
\nInspector took some signatures from Elumalai, and thereafter they
\nwent back; that the Sub-Inspector detained him in the police station
\nfor two days and arranged for treatment for the hand wounds through
\na Homeopathy Doctor; and that only on Thursday, he sent him to
\ncourt. He also stated that he did not hit Rathina Gounder or Elumalai.\n<\/p>\n
9.\tIt is now well settled that the onus is on the accused to establish
\nthat his action was in exercise of the right of private defence. The plea
\ncan be established either by letting in defence evidence or from the
\nprosecution evidence itself, but cannot be based on speculation or
\nmere surmises. The accused need not take the plea explicitly. He can
\nsucceed in his plea if he is able to bring out from the evidence of the
\nprosecution witnesses or other evidence that the apparent criminal act
\nwas committed by him in exercise of his right of private defence. He
\nshould make out circumstances that would have reasonably caused an
\napprehension in his mind that he would suffer death or grievous hurt if
\nhe does not exercise his right of private defence. There is a clear
\ndistinction between the nature of burden that is cast on an accused
\nunder section 105 of the Evidence Act (read with section 96 to 106 of
\nIndian Penal Code) to establish a plea of private defence and the
\nburden that is cast on the prosecution under section 101 of the
\nEvidence Act to prove its case. The burden on the accused is not as
\nonerous as that which lies on the prosecution. While the prosecution is
\nrequired to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused can
\ndischarge his onus by establishing a preponderance of probability  (vide
\nPartap vs. State of U.P.<\/a> (1976 (1) SCC 757); Salim Zia vs. State of UP (1979
\n(2) SCC 648); and Mohinder Pal Jolly vs. State of Punjab<\/a> (1979 (3) SCC 30).\n<\/p>\n
In Sekar vs. State [2002 (8) SCC 354], this Court observed :
\nA plea of right of private defence cannot be based on surmises
\nand speculation. While considering whether the right of private
\ndefence is available to an accused, it is not relevant whether he
\nmay have a chance to inflict severe and mortal injury on the
\naggressor. In order to find whether right of private defence is
\navailable or not, the injuries received by the accused, the
\nimminence of threat to his safety, the injuries caused by the
\naccused and the circumstances whether the accused had time to
\nhave recourse to public authorities are all relevant factors to be
\nconsidered. Whether in a particular set of circumstances, a
\nperson acted in the exercise of the right of private defence, is a
\nquestion of fact to be determined on the facts and
\ncircumstances of each case. No test in the abstract for
\ndetermining such a question can be laid down. In determining
\nthis question of fact, the Court must consider all the surrounding
\ncircumstances. It is not necessary for the accused to plead
\nin so many words that he acted in self-defence. If the
\ncircumstances show that the right of private defence was
\nlegitimately exercised, it is open to the Court to consider
\nsuch a plea. In a given case, the Court can consider it
\neven if the accused has not taken it. If the same is
\navailable to be considered from the material on record.\n<\/p>\n
                                                               (emphasis supplied).\n<\/p>\n
\tThe above legal position was reiterated in Rizan v. State of
\nChhattisgarh [2003 (2) SCC 661]. After an exhaustive reference to
\nseveral decisions of this Court, this Court summarized the nature of
\nplea of private defence required to be put forth and the degree of
\nproof in support of it, thus :\n<\/p>\n
“Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the
\nburden of proof is on the accused, who sets off the plea of self-
\ndefence, and, in the absence of proof, it is not possible for the
\ncourt to presume the truth of the plea of self-defence. The court
\nshall presume the absence of such circumstances. It is for the
\naccused to place necessary material on record either by himself
\nadducing positive evidence or by eliciting necessary facts from
\nthe witnesses examined for the prosecution. An accused
\ntaking the plea of the right of private defence is not
\nrequired to call evidence; he can establish his plea by
\nreference to circumstances transpiring from the
\nprosecution evidence itself. The question in such a case
\nwould be a question of assessing the true effect of the
\nprosecution evidence, and not a question of the accused
\ndischarging any burden. When the right of private defence is
\npleaded, the defence must be a reasonable and probable version
\nsatisfying the court that the harm caused by the accused was
\nnecessary for either warding off the attack or for forestalling the
\nfurther reasonable apprehension from the side of the accused.
\nThe burden of establishing the plea of self-defence is on the
\naccused and the burden stands discharged by showing
\npreponderance of probabilities in favour of that plea on the basis
\nof the material on record. The accused need not prove
\nthe existence of the right of private defence beyond
\nreasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a
\ncivil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in
\nfavour of his plea.”\n<\/p>\n
[Emphasis supplied]    <\/p>\n
10.\tWe will examine the evidence, keeping in view, the said
\nprinciples. Thangaraj (PW-2) is a neighbour and nephew of both the
\ndeceased and the appellant. In his examination-in-chief, he gave
\ndetails of the quarrel and altercation between Rathina Gounder and the
\nappellant in regard to removal of the thorny sticks covering the drain,
\nand stated that during the quarrel, Krishnan took a thorn stick that
\nwas lying nearby and hit Rathina Gounder on his head; that when the
\nappellant tried to hit Rathina Gounder the second time, Elumalai tried
\nto prevent it and sustained injury to his right hand; and that the
\nappellant thereafter pushed Rathina Gounder who fell down. In the
\ncross-examination, he stated that as it was summer, water was not
\nstagnating in the drain situated in the common yard and there was no
\nnuisance by pigs; that because of the thorn sticks, the cattle had no
\nplace to rest; that when Rathina Gounder and the appellant were
\npushing each other during the quarrel regarding thorn sticks, Rathina
\nGounder bit appellant’s hand between the right thumb and index
\nfinger; that when Rathina Gounder and Elumalai attempted to hit the
\nappellant with a thorn stick, the appellant tried to prevent it by
\ncovering his head with his hands and the blows landed on both his
\nelbows resulting in wounds. He has also stated that he had
\naccompanied Rathina Gounder and others to Arakandanallur Police
\nStation at 2 A.M. that then he saw the appellant sitting in the police
\nstation and at that time also he saw the injuries on the hands of the
\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n
The above evidence clearly and completely corroborates and supports
\nthe case of self-defence put forth by the appellant. What is significant
\nis that the PW-2 was not subjected to any re-examination on this
\naspect nor was he sought to be declared hostile. In fact, the manner in
\nwhich he has given evidence in examination-in-chief and in the cross-
\nexamination shows that he was not a partisan witness and was giving
\nevidence in a natural manner. The said evidence of Thangaraj (PW-2),
\nwhich fully supports the case of self-defence put forth by the
\nappellant, has not been considered by the trial court and completely
\nignored by the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tWe may also refer to the evidence of the other eye-witnesses in
\nthis behalf. Elumalai (PW-1) has of course denied the suggestions that
\nthe deceased bit the right hand of the appellant, and that he and the
\ndeceased had hit the appellant and the blows had landed on
\nAppellant’s elbows when he raised his hands to cover his head. When
\nhe was asked whether he noticed the blood on the hands of appellant,
\nhe stated that he did not “notice” it. He admitted the differences and
\nquarrels between his family and the appellant in regard to tethering of
\ncattle by the appellant and keeping thorny sticks in the common yard.
\nPitchaimuthu (PW-4) in his cross-examination has stated that he did
\nnot notice whether Rathina Gounder and the appellant were pushing
\neach other but he noticed Rathina Gounder repeatedly putting the
\nthorn sticks  and the Appellant repeatedly removing them; that there
\nwas no stagnant water in the drain, over which the thorn sticks were
\nbeing placed; and that both Rathina Gounder and the appellant,
\nquarrelling and pushing each other came from the drain area to the
\nroad. He states that he did not see the deceased and Elumalai hitting
\nthe appellant and that he did not know whether the appellant received
\ninjuries to his hands and whether the blood was oozing from the
\nwounds. It is evident that PW-4 was not a witness to the entire
\nincident and that he saw only a part of it. Kasiammal (PW-5), in her
\ncross-examination admitted that there were altercations on account of
\ntethering of cattle and removing of thorny sticks; that between 8 & 9
\nP.M. on the day of the incident, both Rathina Gounder and the
\nappellant were respectively putting and removing the thorn sticks
\nrepeatedly, and that when the appellant hit her husband with the
\nthorn stick, her husband did not fall down. She, of course, denied that
\nRathina Gounder bit the appellant in his hand and also denied that
\nRathina Gounder and Elumalai hit the appellant with sticks.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tOut of the four eye-witnesses, two (PWs.1 and 5) are the son
\nand widow of the deceased. The evidence of these two witnesses
\nestablishes that there was enmity and an ongoing dispute in regard to
\nthe use of the common yard; That on the day of the incident, the
\nentire quarrel arose because PW-5 initially placed the thorn sticks over
\nthe area where the appellant was tethering his cattle, and the
\ndeceased  and PW 1 prevented the appellant when he tried to remove
\nthem; and that as a consequence there was an altercation between
\nthe deceased and the appellant when the deceased repeatedly placed
\nthe thorny sticks and the appellant repeatedly removed them. In fact
\nthe evidence of the two independent eye-witnesses- PW-2 and PW 4,
\nclearly show that there was no stagnant water in the drain and
\ntherefore, there was no need to place  any thorn sticks over that area.
\nIt is clear that the deceased, PW-1 and PW-5 were bent upon
\npreventing the appellant from tethering his cattle in the common yard.
\nIn view of the admitted discord and disputes between the family of the
\ndeceased and the appellant, and being acting participants in the
\ndispute which led to the incident, it is but natural that these two
\nwitnesses will highlight only the acts of the appellant and not the acts
\nof the deceased and PW-1.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tIn regard to the evidence of PW-4, Pitchaimuthu, we find that he
\nsaw the incident from a distance. He came out of his house only after
\nthe altercation\/quarrel had gone on for some time and, therefore, had
\nseen only a part of the incident. He admits that the altercation centred
\naround the appellant asking why the thorn sticks were put at the place
\nwhere he was tethering his cattle, and the deceased asking why
\nappellant was removing the thorny sticks. He also admits that when he
\nfirst saw the incident, both were holding the thorny sticks and pulling
\neach other. He also admits that the deceased was repeatedly placing
\nthe thorny sticks and the appellant was repeatedly removing them. He
\nalso admits that both the deceased and the appellant quarreling and
\npushing each other, came from the drain area to the road. Therefore,
\nthe evidence of PW-2 Thangaraj becomes crucial. He had seen the
\nincident from the beginning and has narrated what had happened. He
\nhas clearly admitted that when the deceased and the appellant were
\nquarreling and pulling each other, Rathina Gounder bit the appellant in
\nhis hand between the right hand thumb and the index finger, and that
\nboth the deceased and his son Elumalai attacked the appellant with
\nsticks and to protect his head, the appellant raised his hands and got
\ninjured in the elbow. It becomes obvious that apprehending grievous
\nhurt, he took the thorn stick lying near by and hit the deceased to
\nprotect himself. The appellant was neither armed with any weapon
\nwhen he came to the spot nor bring any thing from his house after the
\nquarrel started.  He just picked up the thorn stick which was lying at
\nthe spot. This clearly probabilises a case of self-defence.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tAnother significant aspect to be noticed is that both Thangaraj
\n(PW-2) and Pitchaimuthu (PW-4) admit that there was no stagnant
\nwater in the drain situated in the common yard. We have referred to
\nthis fact earlier also. Therefore, the case of the prosecution that the
\npigs were coming and causing nuisance in the stagnant water in the
\ndrain and therefore, thorn sticks were placed by the family of the
\ndeceased to cover the drain, is proved to be false. It became clear that
\nthe deceased and his wife and son were putting thorny sticks to
\nprevent the appellant from tethering his cattle and they started the
\ndiscord.\n<\/p>\n
15.\tThe trial court considered the plea of self-defence but rejected it
\non the ground that the appellant did not state in his statement under
\nsection 313 Cr.P.C. that he had hit Rathina Gounder in self-defence.
\nObviously, an accused cannot be expected to admit that he had
\ninflicted the blow that killed the deceased. Where the plea of the
\naccused, when read with the evidence of the eye witnesses, brings out
\na set of facts and circumstances showing that the accused acted in
\nexercise of the right of private defence, the fact that the accused in his
\n313 statement only referred to the acts of the deceased and his son
\nhitting him and did not admit that he hit back the deceased, is not a
\nground to reject the plea of private defence. The approach of the trial
\ncourt to the plea of private defence was erroneous. The High Court did
\nnot go into this aspect at all.\n<\/p>\n
16.\tIt is true that the appellant has not examined the Doctor who
\ntreated his injuries on his elbows. There is also no FIR in regard to
\nappellant’s version of the incident. There is nothing to show that the
\nJail Doctor recorded the injuries. These factors would normally militate
\nagainst acceptance of a plea of self defence. But the clean and
\nuncontroverted evidence of PW-2 and the plausible explanation by the
\naccused in his statement under Section 313 tilt the balance. The court
\nmust be objective and examine the matter on the facts and
\ncircumstances of each case to find out whether the situation was such
\nas was likely to reasonably cause apprehension in the mind of the
\naccused that death or grievous hurt would be caused to him if he did
\nnot act in self defence. Hs action in hitting the deceased on his head
\nby taking a stick lying on the ground, was a reflex action to save
\nhimself from the attack by the deceased and his son. The appellant
\nhad not gone to the spot with any weapon. There was a lengthy
\nquarrel and scuffle between the deceased and the appellant. The
\ndeceased and his wife and son were the root-cause for the quarrel as
\nthey put thorny sticks at the place where appellant was tethering his
\ncattle. The evidence probabilises the defence version that the
\ndeceased and his son had hit the appellant with sticks on his head and
\nthe blows landed on his elbows when he raised his hands to protect his
\nhead, and that at that stage, the appellant picked up one of the thorny
\nsticks which were lying at the spot and hit the deceased, to protect
\nhimself and not with the intention of killing him. The deceased died
\ntwo days later on account of the resultant injury. The accused has also
\nstated that he was detained in the police station on the night of 9th ,
\nbut was shown to have been arrested only on 11th. It is not necessary
\nto go into this aspect, as the preponderance of probabilities show that
\nthe act of the appellant was in all probability, in exercise of his right of
\nprivate defence.\n<\/p>\n
17.\tFor the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal, set aside the
\nconviction under sections 302 and 323 and acquit the appellant of the
\ncharges. His bail-bonds shall stand discharged.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006 Author: Raveendran Bench: G P Mathur, R V Raveendran CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 631 of 2000 PETITIONER: Krishnan RESPONDENT: State of Tamil Nadu DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14\/08\/2006 BENCH: G P Mathur & R V Raveendran JUDGMENT: J U D G M […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-117436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKrishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-24T10:50:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"24 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-24T10:50:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006\"},\"wordCount\":4783,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006\",\"name\":\"Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-08-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-24T10:50:11+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-24T10:50:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"24 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006","datePublished":"2006-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-24T10:50:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006"},"wordCount":4783,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006","name":"Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-08-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-24T10:50:11+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/krishnan-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-on-14-august-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Krishnan vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 14 August, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117436","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=117436"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/117436\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=117436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=117436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=117436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}