Back
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Jaichandren and S. Nagamuthu, JJ.
N. Chellaiah
Versus
State by the Inspector of Police, Murappanadu Police Station
Crl. A. (MD). No. 172 of 2006
Decided On : 1 February 2013
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - CULPABLE HOMICIDE - INTENTION TO CAUSE DEATH - DEATH DUE TO SEPTICAEMIA - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PRIMARY AND SECONDARY EFFECTS OF INJURIES - APPLICATION OF SECTIONS 299 AND 300 IPC - INTERPRETATION OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS - DETERMINATION OF OFFENCE UNDER SECTIONS 302, 304 OR 326 IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 341, 302, 326, and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for causing injuries to the deceased and criminally intimidating the deceased's family members. The deceased sustained injuries due to a sickle attack by the appellant and later died in the hospital due to complications arising from the injuries. The appellant challenged the conviction and sentence.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant had the intention to cause death and that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. The court distinguished between the primary and secondary effects of injuries and held that the death was primarily due to the injuries caused by the appellant and not due to septicaemia, which was a secondary effect. The court relied on various judicial precedents to determine the applicability of Sections 299 and 300 IPC and concluded that the appellant's act fell under the first limb of Section 300 IPC, making him liable for punishment under Section 302 IPC.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant had the intention to cause death. 2. Whether the injuries inflicted on the deceased were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. 3. Whether the death was primarily due to the injuries caused by the appellant or due to septicaemia. 4. Applicability of Sections 299 and 300 IPC to the facts of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The intention to cause death can be inferred from the nature of the injuries, the weapon used, the number of injuries, the location of injuries, the opportunity to complete the task of killing, and the words uttered at the time of the occurrence. 2. The sufficiency of injuries to cause death is determined by considering the medical opinion, the nature of the injuries, and the location of injuries. 3. The primary cause of death is determined by examining whether the injuries were directly associated with the act of the accused and whether the death was a natural consequence of the injuries. 4. The applicability of Sections 299 and 300 IPC depends on whether the act of the accused falls under any of the limbs of Section 299 IPC and whether the offence is covered by any of the special exceptions appended to Section 300 IPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the criminal appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court.
Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 369 of 2001, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No. I), Tuticorin. He stood charged for offences under Sections 341 , 302 , 326 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 7.10.2003, the Trial Court has convicted him under all the charges. For the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, the Trial Court has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for one week, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 326 of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo imprisonment for six months and for the offence under Section 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- in default to undergo imprisonment for one month. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:
The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.S.Shanmugavel. P.W.1 is his wife and P.W.2 is the son of the deceased. P.W.3 is the father-in-law of P.W.2. Two years prior to the occurrence, there arose a dispute between the deceased and the accused in respect of cutting of acacia trees. This resulted in a criminal case against the deceased, P.W.2, one Marimuthu and few others. This is projected as the motive for the occurrence.
2.1. On 29.3.2000, at about 10.00 a.m., P.W.1 and the deceased were proceeding through the land of one Annamalai Thevar. At that time, the accused came there with a sickle in his hand. He shouted at the deceased saying that he would not leave the deceased without wrecking vengeance. So saying, the accused cut the deceased with sickle. The deceased warded off the said attack by his hands. The blow fell on the right forehand. Then, the accused cut him on the right side of the abdomen of the deceased. The injury was so deep and the intestine protruded out. P.W.1 attempted to rescue the deceased. Immediately, the accused cut P.W.1 on her right hand, left hand, right shoulder and right upper hand, repeatedly with sickle. P.W.2 and P.W.3 were then working in a nearby field. On hearing the alarm raised, they rushed towards the place of occurrence and witnessed the entire occurrence. On seeing them, the accused criminally intimidated them by brandishing sickle against them. Then, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence with the weapon.
2.2. P.W.2 and P.W.3, forthwith, took P.W.1 and the deceased to the Government Medical College Hospital at Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. P.W.12, Dr. S. Rajan, examined the deceased at 11.05 a.m., on 29.3.2000. The deceased told him that on 29.3.2000, at 10.00 a.m., in a field at Agaram, he was attacked by a known person with sickle. The deceased was, at that time, fully conscious. He noticed two injuries on his body as follows:
“(i) A cut injury measuring 15 x 3 cm-traverse- on the right side of the abdomen.
(ii) A cut injury on the right upper arm measuring 15 x 4 x 3 cm exposing the bone.”
According to P.W.12, from out of the X-ray taken and on his own assessment, both the injuries were grievous in nature.
2.3. On the same day, at 11.10 a.m., he examined P.W.1, who told that at 10.00 a.m., on 29.3.2000, in a field at Agaram, she was attacked by a known person with sickle. P.W.12 noticed the following injuries:
“1. A cut injury on the right arm above elbow measuring 2 X ½ cm.
2. A cut injury measuring 5 cm X ½ X ½ cm at the right shoulder.
3. A cut injury measuring 2 X 1 cm on the left arm.
4. A swelling on the middle of left arm.”
2.4. X-ray was taken on P.W.1, which revealed that the injuries 1 and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
