Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1964
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. NAGAMUTHU, V. BHARATHIDASAN, JJ.
Aruchami - Appellant
Vs.
State represented by The Inspector of Police - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 2015
Decided On : 05-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Jayasri Baskar
For the Respondent: Mr. M. Maharaja
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the first exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, and the liability of the accused under Section 304(i) for causing the death of his children and under Section 309 for attempting suicide.
Headnote:
Endosulfan Poison - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, Section 302, Section 309, Section 304(i) - The court discussed the application of Section 300 and the first exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, and the liability of the accused under Section 304(i) for causing the death of his children and under Section 309 for attempting suicide. The court also considered the mitigating circumstances and imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years for the offence under Section 304(i) of the IPC.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, accused of causing the death of his children by administering endosulfan poison and attempting suicide, challenged the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the accused had administered poison to his children and attempted suicide, and held him liable under Section 304(i) for causing the death of his children and under Section 309 for attempting suicide.
Issues: The issues involved the determination of whether the accused administered poison to his children and attempted suicide, and the appropriate liability and punishment under the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the first exception to Section 300 of the IPC, considering the sustained provocation faced by the accused, and held him liable under Section 304(i) for causing the death of his children. The court also imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years, taking into account the mitigating circumstances.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was allowed in part, setting aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302 and instead convicting the accused under Section 304(i) and imposing a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years, with no fine amount imposed due to the accused's financial status. The sentences were directed to run concurrently, and the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant was set off under Section 428 of the Cr.P.C.
S. Nagamuthu, J.
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 52 of 2012 on the file of the learned IV Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 (2 counts) & 309 I.P.C. By judgment dated 13.06.2013, the trial Court convicted the accused under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for each count for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. No separate sentenced was imposed for offence under Section 309 I.P.C. Considering the financial status of the accused, the trial Court has not imposed any fine amount on the accused. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:-
The accused is a resident of Mampalli Village in Coimbatore District. He had a wife by name Mrs. Sankarayee and two children by name Nagaraj & Periyasamy. Nagaraj & Periyasamy were aged 11 & 10 years respectively. The wife of the accused had become seriously mentally ill and thus, she was taken to her parental home where she was residing. His first son Nagaraj was mentally retarded. The second son Periyasamy was a dump. Thus, both the sons were patients and required constant help from the appellant. The appellant was taking care of the mentally retarded as well as dump children at his house.
3. It is alleged that out of frustration, since, his wife was suffering from mental illness and since, his two sons were disabled persons, he decided to end his life after ending the lives of his children. According to the case of the prosecution, on 15.08.2011, around 10.00 pm, he gave endosulfan poison to both the children namely Nagaraj & Periyasamy and he also consumed the same poison. He locked the house from inside. All the three were lying inside the house unconscious. P.W.1 is a relative of the accused. Casually, he went to the house of the deceased. He found the house locked from inside. He called the accused. But there was no response from inside the house. Then using a ladder, he went atop of the roof and peeped through. The scene was shocking. He found them critically ill and struggling for life. Immediately, P.W.1 arranged for an Ambulance and took all the three to the hospital. The Doctor declared the children dead (hereinafter Nagaraj is referred to as D.1 and Periyasamy is referred to as D.2). P.W.9 Dr. Karupusamy, examined the accused and admitted him as inpatient. He was discharged from the hospital on 24.08.2011 after treatment.
4. P.W.1 went to Kinathukadavu Police Station and made a complaint at 8.30 am on 16.08.2011. P.W.13, on receipt of the said complaint registered a case in Crime No. 920/2011 against the accused for offence under Sections 302 & 309 I.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.11 is the F.I.R. He forwarded both the documents to Court which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate at 4.15 pm on 16.08.2011.
5. On the same day, P.W.14 the then Inspector of Police, took up the case for investigation. He went to the place of occurrence, prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. He recovered two plastic containers at the place of occurrence, from which, he found that there was a smell of endosulfan poison. He recovered the same under a mahazar. Then he conducted autopsy on the body of D.1 & D.2 and forwarded the same for post mortem.
6. P.W.8 Dr. Jayasingh, conducted autopsy on the bodies of the deceased and gave opinion that both of them would appear to have died of endosulfan. P.W.14 made a request to Court to forward the material objects for chemical examination. The report revealed that a plastic container of 500 ml capacity was found in profenofos poison. In another container, he found endosulfan. In a tumbler recovered from the place of occurrence, he found endosulfan and profenofos poison. P.W.14 on completing the investigation, laid charge sheet against the accused.
7. Based on the above m
