logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 SC 079 print Preview print Next print
Court : Supreme Court of India
Case No : Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 3840 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
Parties : Kaliyamurthy & Others Versus State Through Inspector of Police
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioners: ----- For the Respondent: -----
Date of Judgment : 09-01-2026
Head Note :-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 read with Section 149 -
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
- Indian Penal Code, 1860

2. Catch Words:
- Suspension of sentence
- Grant of bail
- Life imprisonment
- Murder
- Section 302
- Section 149

3. Summary:
The accused Nos. 1‑6 were convicted for murder under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment, a judgment affirmed by the High Court. Accused Nos. 5 and 6 filed a petition seeking suspension of their sentences and bail, limiting the prayer to themselves. The Court examined the evidence, noting that while all accused participated in the assault, the fatal injuries were primarily caused by other accused, particularly No. 1. Consequently, the Court found no merit in denying bail to Nos. 5 and 6 and ordered their sentences suspended, directing that they be released on bail with conditions. No opinion was expressed on the merits concerning accused Nos. 1‑4. The Court also noted that the petitioners are women, which influenced the decision.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Allowed
Judgment :-

1. Heard.

2. Leave granted.

3. The accused Nos.1 to 6 have sought for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. However, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants would fairly submit that he is restricting his prayer for grant of bail to accused Nos.5 and 6 only. Hence, placing his submission on record, we have perused the records.

4. The appellants including accused Nos.5 and 6 who came to be tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 have been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by the jurisdictional Sessions Court and affirmed by the High Court.

5. The gist of the prosecution's case is that on 15.08.2005, the accused persons allegedly attacked Vijaya (deceased) with iron rod and bricks on account of a dispute relating to stagnation of sewage water.

6. For the consideration of the prayer of accused Nos.5 and 6 and making it explicitly clear that this scrutiny is confined only to accused Nos.5 and 6 and the findings recorded by the courts-below is looked into with this limited lens, we find that the deceased was attacked by all the accused persons. However, the acts attributed to the appellants, namely, the overt acts relate to throwing of bricks and also punching the deceased on her chest and mouth. In this background when the post mortem report at Exh. P7 is perused, it would indicate that the cause of death has been opined as "Shock and Haemorrhage due to multiple injuries as a result of blunt force impact". Even, according to the prosecution, it is accused No.1 who had used iron rods. As to what factor contributed to the actual death of Vijaya and whether the overt acts attributed to the appellants A5 and A6 had also resulted in death of the deceased Vijaya is an issue which will have to be examined by this Court after evaluating the evidence in detail. Hence, at this juncture, we are of the considered view that appellants A5 and A6 alone would be entitled for the suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

7. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the case and also with regard to the claim of accused Nos.1 to 4. Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the appellants, i.e., accused Nos.5 and 6 stands suspended and they are ordered to be enlarged on bail subject to such terms and conditions as the jurisdictional Court may impose. Yet another factor which sways in the mind of this Court to enlarge the accused Nos.5 and 6 on bail is that they are ladies.

8. List in due course.
 
  CDJLawJournal