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) 1862

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. NAGAMUTHU AND V.BHARATHIDASAN, JJ.
Rajesh- Appellant
Vs.
State:Rep. By The Inspector of Police, Manali New Town - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2015
Decided On : 01-07-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Parthiban
For Respondent: Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor

The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the Indian Penal Code, and the consideration of mitigating and aggravating circumstances in determining the quantum of punishment.

Headnote:

Stone-Throwing - Criminal Law - 341, 323, 302, 304(ii) I.P.C. - The judgment discusses the application of Sections 341, 323, 302, and 304(ii) of the Indian Penal Code in a case involving the throwing of a stone resulting in the death of the deceased. The court analyzed the evidence, witness testimonies, and medical reports to determine the appropriate charge and quantum of punishment for the accused.

Fact of the Case:

The case involved the death of Mrs. Muniammal due to a stone thrown by the accused A.1 during a quarrel. Eye witnesses and medical evidence supported the prosecution's case.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the accused guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(ii) I.P.C. instead of murder under Section 302 I.P.C. The court considered the lack of premeditation and the sudden nature of the act.

Issues: The key issues included the credibility of the witnesses, the nature of the accused's act, and the appropriate charge and quantum of punishment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the accused's act fell within the third limb of Section 299 I.P.C., and thus, did not amount to murder under Section 300 I.P.C. The court considered mitigating and aggravating circumstances to determine the quantum of punishment.

Final Decision: The appellant/A.1 was convicted for the offence under Section 304(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-.

JUDGEMENT :

S. Nagamuthu, J.

The appellant is A.1 in S.C.No.68 of 2012 on the file of the learned Mahalir Judge (Mahalir Fast Track Court), Tiruvallur. There were three other accused in this case. The trial court framed four charges against the accused as detailed below:-

Sl.No

Accused

Section of law

1

A.1

341, 323 & 302 I.P.C.

2

A.2

341, 323 & 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.

3

A.3

341, 323 & 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.

4

A.4

341, 323 & 302 r/w 34 I.P.C.

By judgment dated 16.09.2014, the trial Court convicted A.1 for offences under sections 341 & 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks for offence under Section 341 I.P.C., and to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The trial Court found A.2 to A.4 guilty for offence under Section 341 I.P.C., and sentenced them to undergo simple imprisonment for two weeks. The trial Court acquitted the accused from the other charges. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/A.1 is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.

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

The deceased in this case was one Mrs. Muniammal. P.Ws.1 & 2 are the son-in-law and daughter respectively of the deceased. On 01.03.2007, in the same village, one Ms.Asha passed away. P.W.1 had gone to the house of said Ms. Asha to share the condolence. A.1 Rajesh, was already there. There was a quarrel between A.1 & P.W.1 at the house of the deceased Ms.Asha. The elders intervened and they separated them. The funeral took place on 02.03.2007 at 2.00 pm. After the funeral was over, P.Ws.1 & 2 were returning to their house. At that time, all the four accused came there and started manhandling P.W.2; P.W.1 intervened and all the four accused attacked him also with hands. The deceased who was at a distance rushed to the said place and intervened. A.1 suddenly took a stone and hit the same against the head of the deceased. The deceased fell down and fainted. All the four accused fled away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was thus witnessed by P.Ws.1 & 2. P.W.1 took the deceased to Government Stanley Hospital at 6.00 pm on 02.03.2007. P.W.10 Dr.M.M.Shankar, examined the deceased and at that time, the deceased was conscious. There was bleeding through her nose. He admitted the deceased as inpatient and treated her. Despite treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 04.03.2007 at 1.00 am.

3. hen the deceased was undergoing treatment in the hospital, P.W.1 went to Manali Pudu Nagar Police Station and made a complaint at 8.00 am on 03.03.2007 against all the four accused. P.W.8, the then Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt of the said complaint, registered a case in Crime No.58/2007 for offence under Section 324 I.P.C., against all the four accused. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.8 is the F.I.R. He forwarded both the documents to Court which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate on 03.03.2007 at 4.20 pm.

4. P.W.8, took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. On the same day, he arrested all the four accused. On such arrest, A.1 gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed the place where he had hidden the stone (M.O.1). In pursuance of the same, he took the Police and witnesses to the place of hide out and produced the stone (M.O.1). Then he forwarded A.1/appellant to Court for judicial remand and examined many more witnesses and recorded their statements. After the demise of the deceased, he altered the case into one under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.13 is the Alteration Report. He forwarded the alteration report to Court. Thereafter, investigation was taken over by P.W


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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