Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 3705
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. VENUGOPAL
Adhinarayanan
Versus
State by Inspector of Police Nettapakkam Police Station
CRL.A.No.487 of 2007
Decided On : 14-10-2008
For the Petitioner:E.J. Ayyappan, Advocate.
For the Respondent: R. Natarajan, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, based on the presence of provocation and lack of premeditation or intent.
Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Law - Sec.302 of I.P.C - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies, medical reports, and forensic analysis, to establish the accused's guilt. The court considered the provocation and intent behind the accused's actions and ultimately convicted the accused under Sec.304 (Part I) of I.P.C, sentencing him to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with the murder of his mother, following a quarrel and physical altercation. The prosecution presented witness testimonies, medical reports, and forensic evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec.304 (Part I) of I.P.C, considering the provocation and lack of premeditation or intent. The original sentence of life imprisonment was set aside, and the accused was sentenced to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the evidence presented by the prosecution, the intent and premeditation behind the accused's actions, and the appropriate legal provision to apply in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the provocation and lack of premeditation in the accused's actions, leading to the conclusion that the act amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec.304 (Part I) of I.P.C.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of life imprisonment were set aside, and the appellant was convicted under Sec.304 (Part I) of I.P.C, and sentenced to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The fine and default sentence imposed by the trial Court were upheld.
M. Chockalingam, J.
Challenge is made to a judgment of the III Additional Sessions Division, Pondicherry, made in S.C.No.101 of 2005 whereby the appellant/sole accused in the case stood charged, tried, found guilty for a charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated thus:
(a) P.W.1 and the appellant/accused are the children of the deceased Kasiammal.
P.W.2 is residing in the opposite house. It is the usual practice of the accused to demand money from his mother Kasiammal, quarrel with her and even torture her.
P.W.1 was also living along with them. On 29. 2005 during late hours in the night, the appellant/accused came in a drunken mood, and he was further demanding money and beat his mother. The next morning that was on 29. 2005, at about 6.00 A.M., P.W.1 was driven out of the house by the appellant/accused, and she went to the other brothers house at Karayamputhur and informed him about the incident. Then, she returned at about 1.00 P.M., when the accused and the deceased alone were in the house. On seeing P.W.1, he questioned why she returned, and in that quarrel, the deceased mother intervened. Immediately, he pushed her down, fisted her, took a wooden-log and attacked her on the head. Immediately, he came out of the house when P.W.1 raised a cry. P.W.2 who is actually residing in the opposite house, came out and found the appellant/accused running from the house. Immediately he rushed to the house of the deceased when P.W.1 informed him about the incident. Then, the deceased was taken to the Community Health Centre, Karikalampakkam, where P.W.9, the Doctor, was on duty. When enquired, the deceased informed the Doctor that it was her son who attacked her, and the same was also recorded. Thereafter, on advice she was taken to the Government Hospital for treatment, and she was admitted. But, despite treatment, she died. The information was actually sent to the respondent police.
(b) P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the respondent police station, on receipt of the information, proceeded to the Government Hospital and got the statement from P.W.1, which is marked as Ex.P22 on the strength of which a case came to be registered in Crime No.151 of 2005 under Sec.302 of I.P.C. The complaint, Ex.P22, and the printed FIR, Ex.P23, were all despatched to the Court.
(c) P.W.16, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P4, and a rough sketch, Ex.P5. He also conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P10. Then, a requisition was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem.
(d) P.W.10, the Specialist Gr.II & Head, Department of Forensic Medicine, General Hospital, Pondicherry, on receipt of the requisition, conducted autopsy on the dead body of Kasiammal and found two external injuries. He has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P12, with his opinion that the deceased died of cumulative effect of shock and haemorrhage due to multiple injuries.
(e) Pending the investigation, the accused was arrested on 29. 2005, when he came forward to give a confessional statement which was recorded. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P6. Following the same, he produced M.O.5, bloodstained shirt, and M.O.6, wooden-log namely the weapon of crime, and they were recovered under two independent mahazars. He was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Sciences Department. They have given two reports namely Ex.P13, the Chemical Analysts report, and Ex.P20, the Serologists report, which were placed before the Court. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the final report.
.3. The case was com
