Back
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. Jaichandren and S. Nagamuthu, JJ.
S. Shajin
Versus
State, rep by Inspector of Police, Arumanai Police Station, Kanyakumari District
Crl. A. (MD). No. 149 of 2011
Decided On : 17 December 2012
Confession - Sustained Provocation - Indian Penal Code - Sections 449, 302 - The court confirmed the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was found guilty of entering the deceased's house with a weapon and causing her death. The court held that the act did not fall within the first exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the appellant was liable to be convicted under Section 302. The court also modified the sentence for the offence under Section 449 to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for entering the deceased's house with a weapon and causing her death. The deceased had declined the appellant's proposal for marriage, and the appellant committed the murder when he found out about the deceased's intended marriage to another person.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court held that the appellant's act did not fall within the first exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, he was liable to be convicted under Section 302. The court also modified the sentence for the offence under Section 449 to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Issues: The issues involved the appellant's conviction under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the admissibility of the confession made to the police, and the applicability of the first exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant's act did not fall within the first exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, he was liable to be convicted under Section 302. The court also modified the sentence for the offence under Section 449 to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the appellant's conviction and sentence under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court also modified the sentence for the offence under Section 449 to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000.
Mr. S. NAGAMUTHU, J.
1. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 2 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District. By judgment dated 10.12.2011, the trial Court, convicted him under Sections 449 and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 449 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for offence under Section 302 IPC. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this criminal appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case of the prosecution are as follows:
P.W.1 is the mother of the deceased. The deceased was one Sharmi, aged about 24 years. The deceased was a post graduate having M.E., degree to her credit. She was working in a private college known as “James Engineering College”. The accused had developed love for her and wanted to marry her. But it was not to the liking of the deceased and her family members. The deceased declined to the proposal made by the accused for the said marriage. The accused was a student doing law course in Dr. Ambedkar Law College at Chennai. While so, on 14.2.2010, when the deceased was proceeding to CSI Pastorate, the accused came there and wanted the deceased to agree to marry him. The deceased declined the said offer. The deceased warned the accused not to make any more attempt to meet her, as she had no love at all for him. The family members of the deceased had started to search for a bride groom for the deceased. On 15.2.2010, the family members of a bridegroom, who was employed in Chennai, came to the house of the deceased to see the deceased. On seeing her, they expressed their desire to settle the marriage between the said bridegroom and the deceased. The family members of the deceased also positively responded. Thus, they mutually agreed for the said marriage. It was also proposed to fix the date of marriage, after the bridegroom had returned from Chennai. This information had reached the ears of the accused.
3. On 16.2.2010, at 5.30 a.m., the deceased was at her home. P.W.1 the mother of the deceased was also at home. At about 5.15 a.m., P.W.1 had gone out of the house to a nearby shop for the purpose of buying milk. At 5.30 a.m., when she returned, she found the accused inside the house with an aruval. The deceased was sleeping on the cot. The accused shouted at the deceased and cried out: “since you are not available for me for marriage, you should not be available for marriage for anyone else”. Saying so, the accused cut the deceased on her neck. He pulled her hair and inflicted two more cuts on her neck with aruval. P.W.1 witnessed the occurrence. Then the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence through the front entrance of the house. P.W.1 raised alarm.
4. P.W.3 is the sister-in-law of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the son of P.W.3. P.Ws.2 and 3 were just proceeding towards the house of the deceased at the crucial moment to seek help, as P.W.3 was slightly unwell. At about 5.30 a.m., on 16.2.2010, when they were nearing the house of the deceased, they found the accused running away from the house of the deceased with M.O.1 aruval. When they rushed into the house, they found the deceased in a pool of blood. She was dead. P.W.4 is a neighbour. According to him, at 5.30 a.m., on 16.2.2010, he heard the cry of P.W.1. when he rushed towards the house of the deceased, he found the accused running away from the house of the deceased with aruval. When he went to the house of the deceased, he found the deceased in a pool of blood.
5. After the occurrence, P.W.1 proceeded to the police station and made a complaint on 16.2.2010 at 8.00 a.m. P.W.11 was the Sub Inspector of Police attached to Arumanai Police Station. On receipt of Exhibit P-1 complaint, she re
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
