Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5203
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. CHOCKALINGAM & C.S. KARNAN
Muthu
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, Coimbatore District.
Criminal Appeal No.758 of 2009
Decided On :12-03-2010
For the Appellants:N. Duraisamy & V. Chinnasamy, Advocates.
For the Respondent: N. Balasubramanian, A.P.P.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the accused's act as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code, based on the evidence presented and the circumstances of the altercation.
Headnote:
Murder - Domestic Violence - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 304(I) - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimony and medical evidence, to establish that the accused caused the death of his wife. The court also considered the circumstances of the altercation and concluded that the act of the accused amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence were modified accordingly.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with the murder of his wife, who died from a neck injury sustained during a quarrel at a bus stand. The prosecution presented evidence from eyewitnesses and medical reports to establish the guilt of the accused. The defense argued discrepancies in the evidence and contended that the act did not amount to murder but was a result of sudden provocation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the prosecution, including eyewitness testimony and medical reports, established that the accused caused the death of his wife. The court also considered the circumstances of the altercation and concluded that the act of the accused amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the reliability of eyewitness testimony, discrepancies in the evidence, and the interpretation of the act as either murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the corroborative evidence provided by eyewitnesses and medical reports to establish the guilt of the accused. Additionally, the court considered the circumstances of the altercation and concluded that the act of the accused amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302 IPC were modified, and the appellant was convicted under Section 304(I) IPC and sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant was ordered to be given set off. The fine amount and default sentence imposed by the trial court were upheld.
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
1. Challenge is made to the judgement of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-II, Coimbatore District made in S.C.No.115 of 2009 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous impirsonment.
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(i) The appellant married the deceased Dhanalakshmi on 10.7.2002. They had two children. The deceased often quarrelled with her husband and during the relevant time, she went to her parental home. On the date of occurrence, that was, on 8.7.2009 the accused came to the deceased parental home at Coimbatore and took back the deceased Dhanalakshmi to the matrimonial home. The deceased and the accused started from there and came to the bus stop to go to their home at Vedasanthur Dindigul District. At the bus stand, both of them quarrelled with each other. The deceased proceeded to All Women Police Station at Gandhipuram, Nanjappa Road. The wordy quarrelled continued. The accused asked the deceased, with whom she was living. Immediately, the deceased Dhanalakshmi removed her thali and threw it on the ground. She said that she is going to give a complaint against him in the All Women Police Station. Enraged by the same, the accused immediately rushed to the nearby shop and took a knife and cut her neck. It was witnessed by P.Ws.1 to 3-auto drivers who were standing in the nearby auto stand. Immediately, they went to the rescue but they could not save her. P.Ws. 1 to 3 caught the accused red-handed and handed over to P.W.15 Inspector of Police. P.W.1 gave complaint Ex.P1. On the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.1235/2009 under section 302 I.P.C. The express F.I.R., Ex.P16 was despatched to Court.
(ii) P.W.15, Investigating Officer, took up investigation. He arrested the accused. He went to the spot, made an inspection and prepared the Observation mahazar Ex.P10 in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars. He also drew a rough sketch Ex.P.17. He recovered the blood stained earth and sample earth under a cover of mahazar. He conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and prepared the inquest report Ex.P.18. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for the purpose of post mortem.
(iii) On the requisition made, P.W.9 doctor attached to the Government Hospital conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Dhanalakshmi and found the following injuries.
"A transversely oblique cut injury 10 x 3 cm x Tracheal deep noted on front and both sides of neck. The right end is 7 cm below to right mastoid, left end is 6 cms below to left mastoid and 8 cm below to chin."
The doctor also gave the opinion through the contents in the post mortem certificate Ex.P.7 and also as a witness before the trial Court that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to neck injury sustained by her.
(iv) Since the accused has also sustained injury, he was taken to the hospital for treatment. P.W.8, doctor attached to the Goverment Hospital gave treatment and issued the accident register copy, Ex.P3. Thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand. Further, investigation was done by P.W.16 Inspector of Police. On completion of the investigation, the investigating officer filed a final report.
(v) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and relied on 18 exhibits and 10 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments on either side and took the view that
