Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4874
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Raja
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, Namakkal District
Crl. A. No.501 of 2010
Decided On : 10-11-2010
For the Appellant:N. Manokaran for R. Marudhachalamurthy, Advocates.
For the Respondent: V.R. Balasubramanian, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the factors influencing this distinction such as intention, premeditation, and provocation.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code - Murder - Section 302, Section 304(I)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was charged with the murder of his illicit partner. The prosecution presented evidence including eyewitness testimony and medical reports to support the charge. The appellant argued that the prosecution failed to prove its case and that the act did not amount to murder.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the prosecution had proved the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon. However, the Court accepted the appellant's argument that the act did not amount to murder but constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the appellant's guilt for murder and the interpretation of the nature of the act in question.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the recovery of the weapon to establish the appellant's guilt for the act. The Court also considered the circumstances of the act and concluded that it constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was modified to a conviction under Section 304(I) and the appellant was sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous Imprisonment with set off for the period already undergone. The fine and default sentence imposed by the Trial Court were upheld.
1. Challenge is made to the judgement dated 16.9.2009 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal in S.C. No.66 of 2009, whereby he stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year
2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:-
(i) P.W.1 is the husband of the deceased Malarkodi and they got married 16 years prior to the occurrence. They got two female children. The accused Raja, who was employed as Coolie. developed illicit intimacy with the deceased. After coming to know about this, P.W.1 shifted his residence to Sankalakaradu and P.W.3 was living nearby.
(ii) Two days prior to the occurrence, the deceased informed P.W.1 that there was a wordy altercation between herself and the accused. On 16.8.2009 at about 5 p.m. after returning from the temple, P.W.1 went to Muthukapatti to attend his work. At that time, on the way, he found the accused at Moongil Thoppu nearby his house. Then, the accused went to the house of the deceased and quarreled with her, pursuant to the same, he took M.O.7 koduval and attacker her discriminately and caused her death. The same was witnessed by P.W.3 neighbor. The same was also witnessed by P.W.4, one of the children of P.W.1 that the accused was running away from the place of occurrence with the weapon.
(iii) P.W.1 was informed by phone about the occurrence. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the spot and after seeing the dead body, he gave a report Ex.P1 to P.W.13 Sub Inspector of Police and on the strength of which, a case in Crime No.489 of 2009 was registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Express First Information Report Ex.P16 was despatched to the Court.
(iv) P.W.15 Inspector of Police took up investigation, proceeded to the spot and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P3 and rough sketch Ex.P19. He conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P20. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem. P.W.8 attached to the Government Hospital, Senthamangalam conducted post-mortem and issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.P10 certifying that the death was caused due to shock and hemorrhage 16 to 20 hours prior to autopsy.
(v) P.W.15 took up further investigation and recovered M.O.1 blood stained thread cot, M.O.2 blood stained wooden log, M.O.3 blood stained mud and M.O.4 ordinary mud from the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses under the cover of mahazar Ex.P4. Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 18.8.2009. Thereafter, he gave confession statement voluntarily in the presence of P.W.7 Village Administrative Officer. The admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P5. Following the same, he produced M.O.5 blood stained shirt, M.O.6 lungi, M.O.7 koduva and P.W.15 sent all the material objects to the Forensic Department for chemical analysis. Chemical analysis report Ex.P12 and Serological report Ex.P14 were received. On completion of investigation, final report is filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused.
3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses and relied on 23 documents and also relied on M.Os.1 to 14. On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecution, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, he denied them as false. No witness was examined on the side of the accused.
4. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced by either side and scrutinised the materials available on record, found the accused guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and awarded punishment as referred to above. Hence this appeal is filed at the instance of the appellant.
5. Advancing arguments on behalf
