Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5015
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Jegan & Another
Versus
State rep. By Inspector of Police
CRL.A.Nos.220 & 221 of 2010
Decided On : 23-11-2010
For the Appellants:M. Balasubramanian for S. Sivasubramanian, Advocates.
For the Respondents: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Indian Penal Code, and the reliance on credible eyewitness testimony and medical evidence in reaching a decision.
Headnote:
Sec.302 IPC - Murder - Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC - Culpable Homicide - Sec.506(2) IPC - [Sec.302 IPC, Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC, Sec.506(2) IPC] - The court analyzed the evidence and found A-1 and A-2 guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC, sentencing them to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The court sustained the conviction and sentence under Sec.506(2) IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased, Iyyappan, was attacked and killed by A-1 and A-2 in front of a mechanic shop. The prosecution presented eyewitnesses and other evidence to establish the occurrence and the involvement of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution established the death of Iyyappan due to homicidal violence and the involvement of A-1 and A-2 in the attack. The court analyzed the evidence of eyewitnesses and concluded that A-1 and A-2 were guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the conduct of the witnesses, and the medical and circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimony of an eyewitness, P.W.4, and found it credible, while casting doubt on the testimony of other witnesses. The court also considered the medical evidence and the previous enmity between the accused and the deceased to arrive at the decision.
Final Decision: A-1 and A-2 were found guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Sec.304 (Part I) of IPC and sentenced to 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment. The conviction and sentence under Sec.506(2) IPC were sustained.
(M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. This judgment shall govern these two appeals in C.A.Nos.220 and 221 of 2010 by A1 and A-2 respectively.
2. These appeals challenge a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, in S.C.No.292 of 2009 whereby the appellants stood charged namely A-1 under Sec.302 IPC, A-2 under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC and both A-1 and A-2 under Sec.506(2) IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charges, and A-1 was awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC, and A-2 was awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC, and both A-1 and A-2 were awarded 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.506(2) IPC.
3. Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is the elder brother; P.W.2 is the sisters husband and P.W.3 is the sister of the deceased Iyyappan. Both the accused are well known to them. The deceased and one Pandi Kumar who was doing joint finance business with A-1, were friends. A-1 and Pandi Kumar had strained relationship, and they were rather inimical to each other in their finance business. One year prior to the occurrence, there was a crime of attempt to murder committed by the deceased along with two others in respect of which a case came to be registered, and the deceased along with others was arrested and kept in judicial custody. After the custody for 45 days, the deceased came out on bail. Entertaining fear for A-1, he was shifting the residence often.
(b) While the matter stood thus, on 27.7.2009, the deceased accompanied by P.Ws.1 to 3, went to the house of one Kousalya in order to enquire the death of her son who died in an accident. The mechanic shop of one Babu called Passion Bike, is situated just in front of that house. P.W.4 was an employee working there. At about 2.45 P.M., when all of them went over there, A-1 and A-2 came there in a two wheeler, and A-1 drove the same while A-2 was a pillion rider. When they reached the spot, both of them got down, and there was some wordy altercation. Then A-1 took a hammer which was in the shop of Babu, and attacked Iyyappan on his head. A-1 was having only three fingers in the right hand. While the hammer fell down, A-2 immediately took the same and attacked him on different parts of the body. The occurrence was witnessed not only by P.Ws.1 to 3, but also by P.W.4, who was actually working in the shop. When the crowd gathered, the accused fled away from the place of occurrence.
(c) P.W.4 informed to his employer Babu who, in turn, reached the spot. On the way, P.W.9, the Head Constable, who was on duty, came to know about the occurrence, and he immediately rushed to the spot and took the severely injured to the hospital. P.W.7, the Doctor, declared him dead, and the accident register copy is marked as Ex.P6.
(d) On receipt of the intimation, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police of that 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 Ex.P1, he registered a case in Crime No.957 of 2009 under Sections 341 and 302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P20, was despatched to the Court. Thereafter, he took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P21, and also a rough sketch, Ex.P22. The Photographer, P.W.6, took the photographs of the place of occurrence and also of the dead body. M.O.3 series are the photographs. Thereafter, the Investigator proceeded to the mortuary where he conducted inquest on the dead body of Iyyappan in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P24.
(e) The dead body of Iyyappan was subjected to postmortem by P.W.13, the Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Madras Medical College, on the requisition given by the Investigator. The Doctor has
