SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(Mad) 4914

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Poongavanam
Versus
State, rep. by the Inspector of Police
Crl. A. No.539 of 2010
Decided On : 12-11-2010

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:E. Ramamoorthy, Advocate.
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 application of these provisions to the specific circumstances of the case.

Headnote:

murder - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 307, Section 304(II) - The court discussed the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including the elements of murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and their application to the facts of the case. The court considered the evidence of witnesses, medical reports, and the circumstances of the case to determine the appropriate conviction and sentencing for the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The deceased, who was physically challenged, was married to the accused. A quarrel between them led to the accused attacking the deceased with an iron pipe, resulting in his death. The accused was charged with murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused attacked the deceased and caused his death. The court also considered the strained relationship between the accused and the deceased, the circumstances of the quarrel, and the nature of the attack in reaching its decision.

Issues: The issues included the credibility of witnesses, the nature of the attack, and the applicability of the penal provisions of the Indian Penal Code to the accused's actions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's act, while not intentional or premeditated, constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(II) of the Indian Penal Code, leading to a modification of the conviction and sentencing.

Final Decision: The accused's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was modified to a conviction under Section 304(II) and the sentenced was reduced to 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment with set off for the period already undergone.

Judgment :-

(M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)

1. Challenge is made to the judgment dated 29.7.2010 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Nilgiris, Udhagamandalam in S.C. No.23 of 2009, whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:-

(i) P.W.1 is the paternal aunt of the deceased Parthasarathy. P.W.2 is the husband of

P.W.1. P.Ws.3 and 4 are all neighbors. The deceased, who was a physically challenged person, was employed in a jewellery shop at Coonoor. The accused/appellant and deceased Parthasarathy fell in love with each other and they got married. While they were living together, the accused developed illicit intimacy with one Antony @ Edison. When Parthasarathy raised objection, they had quarrel. The deceased lodged a complaint Ex.P13 to All Women Police Statiion, Coonoor. P.W.12 the then Sub Inspector of Police conducted an enquiry after calling all the concerned persons and thereafter, the parties were advised to go to the Court of Civil law. Thereafter, she left to her parently home at Dindigul.

(ii) One month prior to the occurrence, she came back to the house of Parthasarathy at Coonoor and informed him that she would live with him forgetting the past and she began to live with him. On 5.8.2008 at 3.30 p.m., there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused. P.Ws.1 and 2, who are neighbors, rushed to the house of the deceased and pacified them and they came back. Again the quarrel started. When they came back, the deceased took an iron pipe M.O.1 and beat him on the head of the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased fell down and immediately the accused left the place of occurrence. P.Ws.3, 5 and 6 went over there and took the deceased to the Government Hospital, Coonoor for treatment. P.W.8 Doctor gave initial treatment and Accident Register is marked as Ex.P7. and he advised them to take the injured to the Government Hospital, Coimbatore.

(iii) On getting information, P.W.15 Sub Inspector of Police attached to Coonoor Police station proceeded to the Government Hospital, Coonoor and recorded the statement of P.W.1. After receiving Ex.P1 complaint, on the strength of which, he registered a case in Crime No.359 of 2008 for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P16 First Information Report was despatched to the Court.

(iv) Investigation was taken up by P.W.16 Inspector of Police who, went to the place of occurrence, made an enquiry and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P2 and also rough sketch Ex.P17. Thereafter, P.W.16 recovered M.O.2 blood stained earth and M.O.3 sample earth from the place of occurrence under the cover of mahazar Ex.P3. At about 9.40 p.m. on 5.8.2010 Parthasarathy died in the Hospital. Then, the same was informed to the police station. On receiving the said information, the case was altered to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and amended First Information Report Ex.P18 was despatched to the Court.

(v) Further, P.W.16 conducted inquest on the dead body at the Government Hospital, Coonoor in the presence of witnesses and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P19. Thereafter, the dead body was subjected to post-mortem under requisition Ex.P10. P.W.9 Doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body and issued post-mortem Certificate Ex.P11 where he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and hemmorrhage and due to the head injury.

(vi) Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 6.8.2010. Pursuant to the same, she gave confession statement voluntarily and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses. The admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P4. Pursuant to the same, P.W.16 also recovered M.O.1 iron pipe, M.O.4 chudidhar tops and M.O.% Thuppatta under the cover of mahazar Ex.P6. Thereafter, the accused was sent for judicial remand.

(vii) P.W.17 took up further investigation















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top