Back
2015 Supreme(Mad) 3055
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.NAGAMUTHU and V.S.RAVI, JJ.
C.Arockiyasamy - Appellant
Vs.
The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.526 of 2006
Decided On : 08.10.2015
For appellant : Mr.V.Kathirvelu, Senior counsel for Mr.V.Malaiyendran
For respondent: Mr.K.S.Duraipandian, Additional Public Prosecutor
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of appropriate charges and sentencing under the Indian Penal Code based on the nature of the accused's actions, provocation, and lack of premeditation.
Headnote:
IPC - Conviction under Sections 302 and 307 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the evidence presented under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. It analyzed the eyewitness accounts, medical evidence, and the nature of injuries to determine the appropriate charges and sentencing for the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for stabbing the deceased and another individual during a quarrel over the use of a common thrashing floor. The deceased, a member of the Village Panchayat, and the accused, an agriculturist, had a dispute over the use of the thrashing floor, leading to the fatal altercation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had established the accused's involvement in the stabbing based on eyewitness accounts and medical evidence. It also considered the nature of injuries and the circumstances of the quarrel to determine the appropriate charges and sentencing.
Issues: The issues revolved around the contradictory statements of witnesses, the nature of injuries, and the appropriate charges under the Indian Penal Code for the accused's actions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the accused's actions fell under Section 304(i) IPC for causing the death of the deceased and under Section 326 IPC for causing grievous hurt to the other individual. It considered the provocation and lack of premeditation in the accused's actions to arrive at the final decision.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction under Sections 302 and 307 IPC was set aside, and he was instead convicted under Section 304(i) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Additionally, he was convicted under Section 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years. The court directed that the sentences shall run concurrently, and the period of sentence already undergone by the accused shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
S.NAGAMUTHU, J.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.2 of 2006 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Sivagangai. He stood charged for the offence under Sections 302 and 307 IPC. By judgment dated 11.10.2006, the trial Court convicted him under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 307 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;
(a) The deceased in this case was one Mr.Sesu. He was a member of the Village Panchayat Board of Uthayanoor Village in Sivagangai District. PW1 and PW2 are wife and husband respectively. PW3 is a relative of PWs.1 and 2. They were all residing in the same Village. The accused was also residing in the same village. All of them were agriculturists by profession.
(b) In Uthayanoor Village, there was a thrashing floor which was common to all. The agriculturists having land in that area used the same for the purpose of drying agricultural products. The deceased and PW2 had once entered into an agreement with the Village Panchayat Board to make some constructions on the said common thrashing floor. This was opposed by the accused as he claimed right to use the same for the purpose of drying the agricultural products from his field. This resulted in enmity between the deceased and the accused.
(c) On 01.04.2015, the accused had spread chillies on the said common floor for drying the same. PW2 wanted the accused to remove the same for drying paddy, but the accused refused to do so. He told the deceased to persuade the accused to remove the chillies and to leave vacant floor to PW2 for the purpose of drying paddy. The deceased and PWs.1 to 3 had gone to the house of the accused at around 9.45 p.m. The deceased, being the member of the Village Panchayat, called the accused from his house. The accused came out. They all reached the common thrashing floor. There the deceased wanted the accused to remove the chillies and to leave the thrashing floor vacant to PW2 for drying paddy. This resulted in a quarrel. The quarrel went on for ten minutes. The accused suddenly rushed to his house and came to the thrashing floor again. The quarrel continued. In culmination of the quarrel, it is alleged that the accused took out a knife from his waist and repeatedly stabbed the deceased. When PW2 intervened, he stabbed him also repeatedly. PWs.1 and 3 witnessed the occurrence but, being ladies, they could not prevent the accused from stabbing the deceased and PW2. After stabbing the deceased and PW2, the accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. PWs.1 and 3 cried for help. The villagers gathered. The deceased died instantaneously succumbing to the injuries. PW1 with the help of others took PW2 to the hospital.
(d) PW4 - Dr.Asmabegum examined PW2 at 11.15 p.m. on 01.04.2005. At that time, PW2 was unconscious. PW1 told the doctor that PW2 was attacked by aruval by a known person at 10.00 p.m. in the field. PW4 found the following injuries on PW2:
“1) An incised wound 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm seen on the left cheek extending from angle of mouth to angle of mandible. Muscles, nerves, blood vessels exposed. Bleeding present.
2) An incised wound 5 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm seen on right side chest.
3) An incised wound 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm seen over abdomen above (MC).
4) An incised wound 4 cm x 3 cm x 2 cm seen on right side chest.
5) A lacerated wound 1 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm seen on right palm of right hand.”
Ex.P2 is the accident register. Then, she admitted him as inpatient and gave intimation to the Police.
(e) On receiving intimation, PW11 rushed to the hospital and recorded the st
