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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. NAGAMUTHU, P. DEVADASS, JJ.
Thanigachalam & Anr. - Appellants
Vs.
State rep by The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 620 of 2012
Decided On : 11-02-2016

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. A.M. Rahamath Ali
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Maharaja Additional Public Prosecutor

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 294(b),302, 324,and 34 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 – Postmortem Certificate – Appeal Against conviction - Deceased as well as accused belong to same village According to the case of the prosecution, the first accused had borrowed a sum from the deceased and same remained not repaid - On at about deceased P.Ws.1 and 2 and a few others attended a function at house of one Colony North Street - After function was over when they were returning deceased found these two accused standing - On seeing them deceased demanded from first accused repayment of which was due from him - This resulted in a quarrel between them - At end of quarrel it is alleged that second accused took out an iron rod which was lying there and attacked the deceased on his head once - Then first accused took out a stick and attacked deceased on his back - Held, As we have already narrated there is enormous evidence to show that there was a wordy quarrel between parties occurrence was not a pre-meditated one second accused was not already armed with any weapon - At end of sudden quarrel in heat of passion second accused had taken iron rod lying there and gave a single blow on head - Thus in our considered view act of the second accused would squarely fall within the fourth exemption to Section 300 Indian Penal Code and therefore second accused is liable to be punished only - After occurrence also it is not reported that he was involved in any other crime - Further there are lot of chances for reformation - Appeal is Partly Allowed

JUDGMENT :

S. Nagamuthu, J.

The appellants are the accused 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 99 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore. Both the accused stood charged for offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC. By judgment dated 06.09.2012, the trial Court convicted the first accused for offences under Sections 294(b) and 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 294(b) IPC and to undergo three months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 IPC. So far as the second accused is concerned, he was convicted under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 294(b) IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for 15 days for offence under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellants are before this Court with this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

The deceased in this case was one Mr. Veerapandian. The accused are father and son respectively. The deceased as well as the accused belong to the same village. According to the case of the prosecution, the first accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the deceased and the same remained not repaid. On 18.03.2012, at about 9.00 p.m., the deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 and a few others attended a function at the house of one Mr. Amirthalingam at Maligampattu Colony, North Street, Panruti. After the function was over, when they were returning, the deceased found these two accused standing. On seeing them, the deceased demanded from the first accused, repayment of Rs.5,000/- which was due from him. This resulted in a quarrel between them. At the end of the quarrel, it is alleged that the second accused took out an iron rod, which was lying there and attacked the deceased on his head once. Then, the first accused took out a stick and attacked the deceased on his back. The deceased fell down unconscious. Immediately thereafter, P.Ws.1 and 2 took him to the Government Hospital at Panruti. P.W.4, Dr. Kalaiyarasi, examined the deceased at 9.35 p.m. on 18.03.2012. She found the following injuries:

"1. Deep abrasion of 5cm exposing left toe

2. Deep abrasion of 6cm exposing left great toe

3. 5x 1 cm laceration over occipital region exposing bone."

Ex.P6 is the Accident Register. Since the condition of the deceased was bad, P.W.4 referred him to the Government Hospital at Cuddalore. Accordingly, he was taken to the Government Hospital, Cuddalore. P.W.5, Dr Prema, examined him on 18.03.2012 at 10.20 p.m. At that time, the deceased was unconscious. The X-ray taken on the head of the deceased revealed fracture of the skull. Since his condition was bad, she referred him for treatment to JIPMER Hospital at Puducherry. Accordingly, he was taken to the JIPMER Hospital, Puducherry and admitted at 11.50 a.m. on 18.03.2012. P.W.6-Dr. Sudhirkumar treated him. Despite the treatment given, he died on 21.03.2012 at 11.50 a.m.

3. In the meanwhile, on intimation from the hospital authorities, P.W.8, the then Sub Inspector of Police of Kadampuliyur Police Station rushed to the JIPMER Hospital at Puducherry and recorded the statement of P.W.1 on 19.03.2012. Since the deceased was in an unconscious state, P.W.8 could not record any statement from him. On returning to the police station, he registered a case in Cr.No.156 of 2012 at 1.00 p.m. under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 307 IPC against both the accused. Ex.P1 is the complaint and Ex.P12 is the FIR. He forwarded both the documents to Court and handed over the investigation to P.W.9., the Inspector of Police, Kadampuliyur Police Station.

[a] P.W.9 took up the case for investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence at 2.00 p.m. on 19.03.2012. At the place of occurrence, he prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.3 and another






























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