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

2014 Supreme(Mad) 574

High Court of Judicature at Madras
S. RAJESWARAN & P.N. PRAKASH, JJ.
D. Sudhakar & Others
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu
Criminal Appeal No. 226 of 2012
Decided on : 07-03-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Vibheeshanan, Senior Counsel for S. Saravana Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: V.M.R. Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the accused shared a common intention to commit culpable homicide, leading to convictions under Section 304(i) IPC.

Headnote:

HOMICIDE - LAND DISPUTE - 147, 341, 294, 323, 302, 506(ii) IPC - The court analyzed the evidence and found that the accused shared a common intention to commit culpable homicide, resulting in convictions under Section 304(i) IPC. The conviction under Section 147 IPC was set aside, and the accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC. A5 was convicted under Section 294(b) IPC, A1 and A2 were convicted under Section 341 IPC, and A4 was convicted under Section 323 IPC. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and 302 r/w 149 IPC were set aside. A4's conviction was altered to one under Section 323 IPC, and A5 was acquitted of the charge under Section 147 IPC.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved a land dispute between two families, leading to a fatal attack on the deceased and his sons. The accused were convicted and sentenced by the trial court, and they appealed to the higher court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the accused shared a common intention to commit culpable homicide, resulting in convictions under Section 304(i) IPC. The conviction under Section 147 IPC was set aside, and the accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC. A5 was convicted under Section 294(b) IPC, A1 and A2 were convicted under Section 341 IPC, and A4 was convicted under Section 323 IPC. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and 302 r/w 149 IPC were set aside. A4's conviction was altered to one under Section 323 IPC, and A5 was acquitted of the charge under Section 147 IPC.

Issues: The main issue was whether the accused shared a common intention to commit culpable homicide, and whether the evidence supported the convictions under the relevant sections of the IPC.

Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence and found that the accused shared a common intention to commit culpable homicide, resulting in convictions under Section 304(i) IPC. The conviction under Section 147 IPC was set aside, and the accused were acquitted of the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC. A5 was convicted under Section 294(b) IPC, A1 and A2 were convicted under Section 341 IPC, and A4 was convicted under Section 323 IPC. The conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC and 302 r/w 149 IPC were set aside. A4's conviction was altered to one under Section 323 IPC, and A5 was acquitted of the charge under Section 147 IPC.

Judgment :

P.N. Prakash, J.

1. Five accused who were convicted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -III, Vridachalam, in S.C.No.34/2011 on 20.03.2012 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and other terms of imprisonment, are the appellants before us.

2. A1 and A2 are the sons of A3 and A5. A4 is the nephew of A3. The deceased Paramasivam is the younger brother of A3 and the two injured witnesses P.W.1 and P.W.2 are the sons of the deceased. Thus it is essentially a dispute between the members of two families. It is the case of the prosecution that there was a land dispute between Dhanapal [A3] and his younger brother Paramasivam [deceased], though they had partitioned their lands some twenty years before.

(a) It is the case of the prosecution that on 20.07.2010, Dhanapal [A3] put up a fence in the land that was common to both parties and annexed it to his property. On the same day evening, Parthiban [P.W.2], son of the deceased Paramasivam removed the fence and threw it away. On 26.07.2010 it is alleged that Sudhakar [A1] the son of Dhanapal [A3], came to the house of the deceased and picked up quarrel with the family members and abused them. On the same day, before dusk, Bagyalakshmi [P.W.3] who is the wife of the deceased and the mother of P.Ws.1 and 2, went in search of their cattle which had gone away for grazing. Since she did not return, Paramasivam [deceased] and his two sons P.Ws.1 and 2, went around 7.00 p.m. to help P.W.3 to collect the cattle and bring them back home. As they were passing through the house of Dhanapal [A3] it is alleged by the prosecution that they were wrongfully restrained by A1 and A2. Then Dhanapal [A3], Sivaprakasam [A4, nephew of A3] and Thamizhselvi [A5; wife of A3] came. Except A5, others were armed with eucalyptus sticks. At that time, Dhanapal [A3] exhorted his sons to beat the victim party and Thamizhselvi [A5] abused them in vulgar language. Then, A1 and A2 started indiscriminately attacking Paramasivam [deceased] and his two sons P.Ws.1 and 2. A3 joined them. A4 hit P.W.1 and also the deceased on two hands. Soon Bagyalakshmi [P.W.3] also came to the spot and saw the occurrence. On account of the attack, Paramasivam fell near the canal that was passing by. Thereafter, the assailants left the place as crowd gathered.

(b) The injured persons, namely Bharathidasan [P.W.1], Parthiban [P.W.2] and the deceased were taken by Sathasivam [P.W.5] to the General Hospital, Neyveli Thermal Plant, where Dr.Naveen [P.W.17] examined them at around 7.50 p.m. Paramasivam was brought dead to the hospital and Dr.Naveen [P.W.17] noted seven injuries on his body which have been noted in the Accident Register, the copy of which was marked as Ex.P24. Dr.Naveen also examined Bharathidasan [P.W.1] and noted one injury on his left shoulder. The copy of the Accident Register relating to Bharathidasan [P.W.1] is Ex.P22. Dr.Naveen [P.W.17] examined Parthiban [P.W.2] and noted three injuries on his body and the same have been referred to in the Accident Register, the copy of which is Ex.P23. The injury sustained by P.Ws.1 and 2 were simple in nature as opined by Dr.Naveen [P.W.17].

(c) On receipt of information from the hospital, Asai Thambi, [P.W.24], the Sub Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal, went to the General Hospital and recorded the statement of Bharathidasan [P.W.1] which was treated as a complaint in this case and was marked as Ex.P1. The Sub Inspector of Police [P.W.24] registered a case at 21.15 hours on 26.07.2010 in Neyveli Thermal Police Station Cr.No.359/2010 under Sections 147, 341, 294, 323, 302 and 506(ii) IPC against the five accused above named. The complaint and a copy of the printed FIR was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate, who received the same at 22.40 hours on 26.07.2010, as could be seen from his endorsement thereon.

(d) The investigation was taken over by Subbarayulu [P.W.25], the Inspector of Police, Neyveli Thermal, who went to the scene of o



























































































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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top