Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 657
Madras High Court
N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMARk, P.DEVADASS, JJ.
Poovammal
Versus
State represented by The Inspector of Police, V.K.Puram Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
Criminal Appeal (MD) No.30 of 2011
Decided on : 08-02-2012
For the Appellant:S.Jeya Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K.S.Duraipandian, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of sustained provocation and loss of mental balance as grounds for culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 I.P.C.
Headnote:
Culpable Homicide - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 304 - The court discussed the legal provisions of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 I.P.C. and its distinction from murder under Section 302 I.P.C. The judgment highlighted the concept of provocation and sustained provocation, and how it influenced the court's decision in convicting the appellant under Section 304, part I, I.P.C.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a mother, killed her son after facing sustained provocation and frustration due to her son's refusal to support her after the death of her husband. The court found that the appellant's mental balance was lost at the time of the offence, leading to the application of Exception I to Section 300 I.P.C.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304, part I, I.P.C. instead of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. due to the sustained provocation and loss of mental balance at the time of the offence.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant's case fell under Section 302 I.P.C. or under Section 304 I.P.C., part I or Part II, considering the sustained provocation and mental state of the appellant at the time of the offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principles of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, considering the sustained provocation and loss of mental balance of the appellant at the time of the offence, leading to the application of Exception I to Section 300 I.P.C.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Section 302 I.P.C. and the life sentence were set aside, and she was instead convicted under Section 304, part I, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 6 years Rigorous Imprisonment.
P.DEVADASS, J.
1. Indeed, this is an unfortunate case.
2. This appeal depicts the pathetic case of a mother, having boundless love for her son.
3. On 23.10.2007, at about 6.30 a.m., before the house of Poovammal, in Church Street, in North Agasthiarpuram, near Vikramapurasingapuram (V.K.Puram), in Ambasamudram Taluk, in Tirunelveli District, huge crowd gathered. It went inside. Poovammal was standing with M.O.1 -Axe. There was blood all over her clothes (M.Os.3 and 4). Near her, her dear son's (Deivendran) dead body was lying with five cut injuries, remaining 6 are defensive in nature (Ex.P.8 post-mortem certificate). Near the dead body, Vijayalakshmi (P.W.1), the wife of the deceased was crying. Poovammal went inside the room and bolted. Murugan (P.W.3) informed Ramachandran, VAO, V.K.Puram. On his information, Vergin Savio (P.W.8), Sub-Inspector of Police, V.K.Puram came. P.W.1 gave her Ex.P.1 -complaint. Poovammal was taken to V.K.Puram Police Station with M.Os.1 and 2 axe and bill-hook. A case in crime No.257 of 2007 for an offence under Section 302 IPC was registered (Ex.P.10 FIR). She was arrested. Sundararajan, Inspector, V.K.Puram Police Station (P.W.12) took up investigation. At the scene place, in the presence of witnesses, he prepared observation mahazar (Ex.P.2), site - plan (Ex.P.17). At the Govt. Hospital, Ambasamudram, Dr.Sankara Venkatesh (P.W.7) performed autopsy. He opined that the death was due to the injuries sustained and the injuries are possible by a weapon like M.O.1. P.W.12 recorded the statement of material witnesses, obtained post-mortem certificate, chemical and serological reports, completing his investigation, filed the Final Report for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
4. Poovammal was charged under Section 302 I.P.C, before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. During the trial, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined, Exs.P.1 to 20 were marked and M.Os.1 to 7 were exhibited. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, she denied her complicity, she did not let in any evidence.
5. The learned Sessions Judge, upon appreciation of the evidence, on 17.11.2008, found her guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced her to life and also fined Rs.1,000/- in default, directed her to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and ordered adjusting of her remand period against the said sentence vide Section 428 Cr.P.C.
6. In view of the clinching oral, documentary evidence and material objects, Mr. S.Jeyasingh, learned counsel for the appellant confined his arguments only to the nature of the offence established, precisely, he argued on the sentence aspect.
7. We have also carefully perused the voluminous evidence on record. We concur with the view of the learned Sessions Judge that appellant killed her son.
8. In support of his plea to dilute the rigour of the sentence, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted as under:-
(i) After the death of her husband, Poovammal was left alone, none to support her, in the circumstances, her only hope is her son. Inspite of her continued demand, he had decided to leave her alone, it created anguish, frustration in her.
(ii) Even prior to the occurrence, she was continuously demanding him to live with her. But, he refused. Frustration developed in her. It sustained in her mind.
(iii) In these circumstances, on the occurrence day, she lost her mind and done away with her son and also attempted suicide.
(iv) In the circumstances, it will not be murder; it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
9. Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the accused having killed her son has been established, in the circumstances, she has been so sentenced.
10. Now, the question is whether Poovammal's case falls under Section 302 IPC or under Section 304 I.P.C, part I or Part II.
11. Manickam and Poovammal are spouses. Their only son is Deivendran. They belong to Maruthuvar (Barber) community. They belong to lower strata
