Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3795
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. CHOCKALINGAM & M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Elumalai
Versus
State: Rep. By the Inspector of Police
CRL.A.No.305 of 2010 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided On : 31-08-2010
For the Appellants:R. Vijayaraghaven, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The judgment establishes the importance of careful scrutiny of eyewitness testimony, consideration of medical evidence, and evaluation of the intention behind the accused's actions in determining the appropriate conviction and sentence.
Headnote:
IPC - Criminal Law - Sections 302, 324, 506(ii) - The judgment discusses the evidence presented by eyewitnesses, the medical reports, and the circumstances of the case to determine the guilt of the accused. The court found the accused guilty under Section 302 and 324 of IPC, but acquitted of the charge under Section 506(ii). The court also considered the provocation and intention behind the accused's actions, leading to the conviction under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC and the final sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased intervened in a wordy altercation between the accused and his wife, leading to the accused stabbing the deceased and injuring the deceased's son. The deceased later died due to the stab injury.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty under Section 302 and 324 of IPC, but acquitted of the charge under Section 506(ii). The court considered the provocation and intention behind the accused's actions, leading to the conviction under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC and the final sentence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the nature of the injuries, and the intention behind the accused's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of eyewitnesses, medical reports, and the circumstances of the case to determine the guilt of the accused. The court also considered the provocation and intention behind the accused's actions in reaching the final decision.
Final Decision: The accused's conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside, and instead, he was convicted under Section 304 (Part I) of IPC and sentenced to seven years Rigorous Imprisonment. The conviction and sentence under Section 324 of IPC were confirmed, and both sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, made in S.C.No.12 of 2010 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sections 302, 324 and 506(ii) of IPC, tried and found guilty under Sections 302 and 324 of IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC and two years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.324 IPC, and he was acquitted of the third charge under Sec.506(ii) IPC.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is the son of the deceased Ramanathan @ Mohammed. P.W.2 is the wife and P.W.3 is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. The deceased along with his family members P.Ws.1 to 3, was residing at No.51, Jyothi Ammal Nagar 3rd Street, Saidapet. The accused is the brother of P.W.2. At about 4.30 P.M. on 30.8.2009, there was a wordy altercation between P.W.2 and the accused in respect of a money transaction. While the same was going on, the deceased intervened, and at that time, aggrieved over the same, the accused attacked him with a knife, M.O.1., on the stomach. On seeing this, P.W.1 intervened. Then he also attacked P.W.1 on his left hand, left rib and also right eyebrow. Immediately when P.W.1 raised the distressing cry, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
(b) P.Ws.4 and 5 who were residing in the other house, were informed, and they rushed to the spot. Immediately they took P.W.1 and the severely injured Ramanathan, P.W.1s father, to the Government General Hospital where P.W.7 was the Doctor on duty. He admitted both of them and gave initial treatment. Ex.P4 is the accident register copy for P.W.1, while Ex.P5 is the accident register copy for the deceased. Thereafter, immediately, an intimation was given to the respondent police station. P.W.10, the Inspector of Police of the Circle, proceeded to the Government General Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1 which is marked as Ex.P1, on the strength of which he registered a case in Crime No.458/2009 under Sections 324, 341, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P10, was despatched to the Court.
(c) P.W.10 took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P11, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P12. He recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence.
(d) Further treatment was given to P.W.1 and the deceased by P.W.8, the Doctor. The wound certificate in respect of P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P6. Despite the treatment given, the deceased died on 16.9.2009. Then the case originally registered under Sec.307 IPC, was altered to Sec.302 of IPC. The altered FIR, Ex.P14, was despatched to the Court. Then the Investigator conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P15. A requisition was given to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem.
(e) On receipt of the said requisition, P.W.9, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Ramanathan @ Mohammed and has issued a postmortem certificate, Ex.P9, with his opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of stab injury to abdomen.
(f) Pending the charge sheet to be laid, the accused was absconding. Then the final report was filed under Sections 324, 341, 302 and 506(2) of IPC.
3. The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and also relied on 16 exhibits and 1 material object. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Sec.313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which he flatly denied as false. No def
