Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 4
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. CHOCKALINGAM & M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Manickam
Versus
State represented by: Inspector of Police Palacode, Dharmapuri District
CRL.A.No.666 of 2010
Decided on : 3-01-2011
For the Petitioner:Sankaran for Ms. S. Shanthakumari, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of sustained provocation as a mitigating factor in determining the appropriate conviction and sentencing under the Indian Penal Code.
Headnote:
Murder - Provocation - IPC Sec.302, Sec.304 (Part I) - Summary of Acts and Sections: IPC Sec.302, Sec.304 (Part I) - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies, medical opinions, and the recovery of material objects, to establish the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the sustained provocation as a mitigating factor, leading to the conviction under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and the imposition of a 10-year Rigorous Imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was charged with the murder of his wife, following a history of quarrels and a previous attack. The prosecution presented evidence of the accused's motive and the circumstances leading to the murder. The accused denied the incriminating circumstances, and no defense witness was examined.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and medical opinions. The sustained provocation was considered, leading to the conviction under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and the imposition of a 10-year Rigorous Imprisonment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the consideration of sustained provocation as a mitigating factor.
Ratio Decidendi: The court accepted the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies and medical opinions, and considered sustained provocation as a mitigating factor, leading to the conviction under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC.
Final Decision: The accused's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Sec.302 IPC were set aside, and instead, he was convicted under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and directed to suffer 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The fine amount imposed by the trial Court was upheld.
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Dharmapuri, made in S.C.No.111/2009 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 of IPC, tried, found guilty of murder and awarded the punishment of life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased Saroja. The accused/appellant is the husband of the deceased. The accused borrowed Rs.40000/- from the father of P.W.1. On all the times whenever there were demands, he was giving evasive answer. Subsequently, he was quarrelling with his wife, the deceased. On one occasion just 1 = years prior to the occurrence, he insisted his wife to sell the immovable property which was with her. But, she refused, and at that time, he attacked her with a koduval which resulted in the registration of a case by the respondent police in Crime No.465/2002, and the same was actually pending. Because of the same, they were living separately.
(b) On the day prior to the occurrence that was on 27.11.2008, the puberty ceremony of the daughter of the deceased was scheduled to take place, and at that time, the accused also went over there. But, he was not allowed to attend the function. Then, there was a wordy altercation between the accused and the deceased. He also took a vow that one day or the other, he would finish her off and so doing, went away. On the next day that was on 28.11.2008, when the deceased along with P.Ws.2 to 4 was proceeding to the sister's house situated at the place nearby Palacode Main Road at Madhiyan Thottam, the accused attacked her with a billhook as a result of which she died at the spot. Immediately, P.W.1 was informed about the occurrence. Then he rushed to the spot, and thereafter, he proceeded to the respondent police station. At about 10.30 A.M., he gave Ex.P1, the report, on the strength of which, P.W.13, the Sub Inspector of Police of the Station, registered a case in Crime No.1195/2008 under Sec.302 of IPC. Ex.P8, the printed FIR, was despatched to the Court.
(c) On receipt of the copy of the FIR, P.W.14, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection in the presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P4, the observation mahazar, and also Ex.P9, the rough sketch. Then he recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence including the bloodstained earth and also the sample earth. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P10. Then the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition for the purpose of autopsy.
(d) P.W.6, the Civil Assistant Surgeon, attached to the Government Hospital, Palacode, on receipt of the said requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Saroja and has given her opinion in the postmortem certificate, Ex.P3, that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage 8 to 14 hours prior to autopsy and injury to vital organ spleen and multiple stab injuries.
(e) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 29.11.2008, and he came forward to give a confessional statement, which was recorded. The admissible part is marked as Ex.P6, pursuant to which he produced M.O.1, knife, M.O.4, shirt, and M.O.5, lunghi, which were recovered under a cover of mahazar. He was sent for judicial remand. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence and from the dead body, and also the material objects recovered from the accused pursuant to the confessional statement, were sent to the Forensic Sciences Department for the purpose of analysis, which brought forth two reports namely Ex.P13, the chemical analyst's report, and Ex.P14, the serologist's report.
(f) P.W.15, the Inspector of Police, took up further investigation, and on completion of the sam
