SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Mad) 1184

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
Mangayee @ Eswari - Appellant
Versus
State rep.by Sub Inspector of Police - Respondents
CRL. APPEAL NO.323 OF 1996
Decided On : 04 August 2003

Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:Mr.B.Vasudevan, Advocate for Mr.P.Tamizkumaran. For the Respondents:Mr.V.Jaya Prakash Narayan, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).

The judgment established the importance of sustained provocation in determining the appropriate section of the IPC for conviction in a murder case.

Headnote:

murder - Section 304(1) IPC - [Section 302 IPC, Section 304(1) IPC, Section 304(2) IPC] - The court discussed the evidence of witnesses, recovery of the weapon, medical evidence, and sustained provocation to determine the guilt of the accused under Section 304(1) IPC. The judgment also modified the conviction from Section 304(1) IPC to 304(2) IPC based on the sustained provocation.

Fact of the Case:

The accused was charged with the murder of her husband. The prosecution presented evidence of witnesses, recovery of the weapon, and medical evidence. The trial court found the accused guilty under Section 304(1) IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the evidence and found the accused guilty under Section 304(1) IPC. The judgment also modified the conviction to Section 304(2) IPC based on sustained provocation.

Issues: The key issues were the guilt of the accused in the murder of her husband, the admissibility of evidence, and the appropriate section of the IPC for conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of witnesses, recovery of the weapon, medical evidence, and sustained provocation to determine the guilt of the accused under Section 304(1) IPC. The judgment also modified the conviction from Section 304(1) IPC to 304(2) IPC based on the sustained provocation.

Final Decision: The accused was convicted under Section 304(2) IPC and sentenced to undergo four years RI. The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the accused was ordered to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.

Judgment :-

The sole accused/appellant herein, who stood charged and tried for murder of her husband and found guilty under Section 304(1) IPC and sentenced to undergo five years RI has brought forth this appeal.

2. The shorts facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

a) The deceased was the husband of the accused. They were living along with their two children in Chettiyur village. P.W.4 Kala was their daughter. P.Ws.1 Chithan and 2 Duraisamy were neighbours. The deceased suspected that the accused having illegal intimacy with one Shanmugam and they had frequent quarrel on that account. On 13.8.1994 at about 10.00 p.m., when the deceased was sleeping in a cot in front of his house, the accused with M.O.l Suri knife stabbed him on the chest and abdomen and caused instantaneous death. P.W.4 witnessed the occurrence. On hearing the noise of P.W.1, P.W.2 rushed the house of the accused and both of them saw the accused running from the place of the occurrence. They also found the body of the accused lying on the cot in front of the house with a pool of blood. Since there was no conveyance from the village, the next day morning, namely on 14.8.1994 at about 7.00 a.m., P.W.1 came to the Kolathur Police Station and lodged Ex.P.1 complaint to P.W.10 Ganesan, the Sub Inspector of Police.

b) On the strength of Ex.P.1, P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.265/1994 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.9 Express F.I.R was despatched to the concerned Judicial Court, while the copies were sent to higher officials. P.w.11 Subbiah Pillai, Inspector of Police took up investigation on receipt of copy of F.I.R, proceeded to the site of occurrence, made an inspection, and prepared Ex.P.4 Observation mahazar and Ex.P.10 rough sketch in the presence of P.W.7 and another witness. At about 11.30 a.m., he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in front of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and other witnesses and prepared Ex.P.11 inquest report. He examined P.W.1 to 4 and recorded their statements. P.W.11 recovered MO2 blood stained earth, MO3 Sample earth under Ex.P.5 in front of P.W.7 and other witnesses. P.W.11 also recovered MO6 blood stained bed sheet and MO4 blood stained lime stone power and MO5 sample lime stone powder in front of P.W.7 under Ex.P.6 mahazar and recorded statement of PW.7 and other witnesses.

c) He made a request to P.W.8 Dr. Premavathy attached to Government Hospital, Mettur for conducting post-mortem on the body of the deceased through P.W.9 Perumal Head Constable. On 14.8.1994 at about 4.05 p.m. P.W.8 conducted post-mortem certificate. He issued Ex.P.8 post-mortem certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died on injury to the vital organs about 14-18 hours prior to autopsy.

d) On 14.8.1994 at about 4.30 p.m. P.W.11 arrested the accused in front of P.W.5 Velusamy Village Administrative Officer and P.W.6 and recorded the voluntary confessional statement made by the accused in front of the witnesses. The admissible portion of the confessional statement was marked as Ex.P.2. Pursuant to the confessional statement, MO1 Suri knife was recovered under Ex.P.3 in front of P.W.5 and 6 by P.w.11. The Investigating Officer recovered MO8 blood stained saree, MO9 blood stained petticoat and MO10 blood stained blouse in front of P.W.5 and other witnesses under Ex.P.12 from the accused and the accused was sent for remand. P.w.11 examined P.W.5 and P.W.6 and recorded their statements. On 15.8.1994 P.W.11 sent all the M.Os. to the Court. On 17.8.1994 P.W.11 examined P.W.9 and P.W.10 and other witnesses and recorded their statements. On 21.8.1994, P.w.11 examined P.W.8 Doctor and recorded her statement. On 22.8.1994, P.W.11 made a request to the Judicial Magistrate, Omalur for recording the statements of P.Ws.1,2 and 4 to 6 under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and made a request for sending the MOs for chemical analysis. Ex.P.13 was the chemical analysis report. Ex.P.14 was the serologist report and Ex








Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top