Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 5083
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Manickam
Versus
State rep. By: The Inspector of Police Maharajhkadai Police Station Krishnagiri
CRL.A.No.598 of 2010
Decided On : 29-11-2010
For the Petitioner:Ms. S. Shantha Kumari, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the prosecution must prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and in this case, the evidence presented did not support the charge of murder under Sec.302 IPC.
Headnote:
Murder - Evidence - Sec.302 IPC - Sec.325 IPC - [Sec.302 IPC, Sec.325 IPC] - The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence and statements made by the deceased to the doctors did not support the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the injuries caused were punishable under Sec.325 of IPC, and hence, the accused was convicted under Sec.325 of IPC and sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with murder under Sec.302 IPC for causing the death of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness accounts and medical evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence and statements made by the deceased to the doctors did not support the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the injuries caused were punishable under Sec.325 of IPC, and hence, the accused was convicted under Sec.325 of IPC and sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment.
Issues: The main issue was whether the accused was guilty of murder under Sec.302 IPC based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence and statements made by the deceased to the doctors did not support the prosecution's case. The court concluded that the injuries caused were punishable under Sec.325 of IPC, and hence, the accused was convicted under Sec.325 of IPC and sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court on the appellant/accused under Sec.302 of IPC were set aside, and instead, he was convicted under Sec.325 of IPC and sentenced to three years Rigorous Imprisonment.
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. Challenge is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, made in S.C.No.103/2002 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Sec.302 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence.
2. Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:
(a) P.W.1 is the mother and P.W.2 is the sister of the deceased Mallika. The deceased was given in marriage to the appellant/accused. He used to come in a drunken mood and quarrel with her often. When they were living happily for short a while, she became conceived. Thereafter, she came to the house of P.W.1 and was staying over there. On the date of occurrence that was on 11.7.2005, in the noon hours, he came to the house of P.W.1 and called Mallika to his matrimonial home. She replied that she is having a baby in her hand, and it is also too young, and under the circumstances, she could not come. Immediately, raising a quarrel, he took a stone and dashed on her mouth. On hearing the sound, P.Ws.1 and 2 and one Mani got inside. At that time, he took a knife and stabbed her on different parts of the body and also kicked her on the stomach. Then he left the place of occurrence. Immediately, she was taken to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri, where she was medically examined and given treatment by P.W.5, the Doctor. The copy of the accident register is marked as Ex.P6. Thereafter, she was taken to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and was given treatment by P.W.6, the Doctor. The accident register copy is marked as Ex.P7. Thereafter, an intimation was given to the respondent police station.
(b) P.W.4, the Head Constable, attached to the respondent police station, proceeded to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and recorded the statement of the victim which is marked as Ex.P4. Thereupon, he came back to the police station and handed over the same to P.W.10, the Sub Inspector of Police, who on the strength of Ex.P4, the complaint, registered a case in Crime No.164/2005 under Sections 324 and 323 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P11, was despatched to the Court.
c) P.W.10 proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, which is marked as Ex.P1, and he also prepared a rough sketch marked as Ex.P12. He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence. Thereafter, on 17.7.2005, the accused was arrested. He was sent for judicial remand.
(d) Despite treatment, Mallika died on 20.7.2005. An intimation was given by P.W.7, the Doctor. On receipt of the same, the case was altered to Sec.302 of IPC, and the altered report, Ex.P13, was despatched to the Court.
(e) One Vikramsingh, Inspector of Police, Guruharapalli Police Station who was in charge of the respondent police station, took up investigation and also recorded the statements of the witnesses. Thereafter, he proceeded to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, and conducted inquest on the dead body of Mallika in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P14. Then he gave a requisition to the hospital authorities for the purpose of postmortem.
(f) P.W.9, the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College, Salem, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of Mallika and has given her opinion under Ex.P10, the postmortem certificate, that the deceased would appear to have died of effects of blunt injury of abdomen.
(g) Further, the statements of the witnesses were recorded. P.W.11, the Inspector of Police, took up the further investigation and on completion of the same, filed the final report.
3. The case was committed to Court of Session, and necessary charge was framed. In order to substantiate
