Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.T. SELVAM, N. SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
Thangamuthu – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by, the Inspector of Police Chennimalai Police Station – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 199 of 2017
Decided On : 19-02-2018
For the Appellant : C. Ramkumar.
For the Respondent: V. Arul.
Headnote:
SUSTAINED PROVOCATION - Criminal Law - IPC 449, 302, 307 - The judgment discusses the sustained provocation theory and its applicability in the case. The court analyzes the evidence and concludes that the appellant's act does not fall under the category of sustained provocation. The court confirms the conviction and sentence for the offence under IPC 302 but modifies the sentences for the offences under IPC 449 and 307 (Part II) to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was tried for offences under IPC 449, 302, and 307 (Part II) for causing the death of his wife and injuring his father-in-law. The prosecution's case established that the appellant had a history of ill-treating his wife, leading to her leaving the matrimonial home frequently. On the day of the incident, the appellant entered the house and attacked the deceased and the father-in-law with a sickle, resulting in the death of the deceased and injuries to the father-in-law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of the offences under IPC 449, 302, and 307 (Part II) based on the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court rejected the sustained provocation theory and confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence under IPC 302 but modified the sentences for the offences under IPC 449 and 307 (Part II) to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's act fell under the category of sustained provocation and whether the conviction and sentences imposed by the Trial Court were appropriate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the evidence and concluded that the sustained provocation theory was not applicable in the case. The court also considered the nature of injuries and the intention of the appellant, leading to the rejection of the sustained provocation theory. The court confirmed the conviction and sentence for the offence under IPC 302 but modified the sentences for the offences under IPC 449 and 307 (Part II) to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence for the offence under IPC 302 were confirmed. The sentences for the offences under IPC 449 and 307 (Part II) were modified to rigorous imprisonment for ten years each. The court directed the appellant to undergo the remaining period of the sentence, with the sentence already undergone being given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
1. Appellant, sole accused, in the case in S.C. No. 110/2015 on the file of the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahalir Needhimandram, (Fast Track Mahila Court), Erode, Erode District, was tried for offences u/s. 449, 302 and 307 (Part II) IPC. The Trial Court, under impugned Judgment dated 28.03.2017, found the appellant/accused guilty of the above said offences and sentenced him as follows:-
Conviction under section
Sentence Awarded
449 IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment.
302 IPC
To undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment.
307 (Part II)
To undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default, to undergo 2 years simple imprisonment.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentences, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant/accused.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as follows:-
(a) Deceased Valliammal is the wife of PW-2 Karuppusamy and in-law of the appellant/ accused PW-1 Arunachalam is the son of PW-2 and the deceased. PW-3 Saraswathi is the wife of PW-1/daughter of PW-4 and the appellant accused. PW-4 Sundarambal is the wife of the appellant/accused and mother of PW-3. PW-3 was given in marriage to PW-1 and they were residing at Tiruppur. PW-1 was running a Banian Company at Tiruppur. PW-1's parents, viz. PW-2 and the deceased were residing at Orathupalayam, Paaraikattu Thottam and were owning a Poultry Farm. The appellant/accused being the husband of PW-4, used to torture her and also beat her under the influence of alcohol, due to which, PW-4 used to leave her matrimonial home very often and go to her parental home at Ponnapuram. However, her daughter (P.S.3), son-in-law (PW-1) and father of PW-1 (PW-2) used to pacify PW-4 and effect compromise between PW-4 and the appellant/accused and leave PW-4 at her matrimonial home. This happened for many times. Four months prior to the occurrence, PW-4, as usual, on account of the torture meted out by the appellant/accused, left her matrimonial home and went to her parental home. When the appellant/accused went and requested PW-4 to join him, she refused. Again, the appellant/accused met PWs. 1 to 3 and asked them to pacify PW-4. The efforts of PWs. 1 to 3 to pacify her proved futile. This decision of PW-4, was informed by PW-1 to the appellant/accused. Thinking that PWs. 1 to 3 are in favour of PW-4, the appellant/accused went to Ponnapuram and threatened his wife, PW-4 that if she does not return to her matrimonial home, he will do away not only her, but also their daughter, son-in-law and grandson.
(b) When the matter stood thus, on 21.03.2014, at about 7.00 p.m. PW-1 went to his parental home along with his wife PW-3, to see his parents, viz. PW-2 and the deceased Valliammal. PWs. 1 and 3 were cleaning the Poultry Farm. The deceased was cooking at her residence. PW-2 was also present in the house. At that time, the appellant/accused entered into the house and cut the deceased on her head and left forearm with a sickle. She raised hue and cry. On hearing the same, when PWs. 1 and 3 rushed to the house, they saw the appellant/accused coming out of the house with Sickle (M.O.5). At that time, PW-2 attempted to catch hold of the appellant/accused. The appellant/accused cut PW-2 on his left hand, right hand, neck indiscriminately and as a result, he sustained injuries. Both PW-1 and PW-3 raised alarm. The appellant/accused fled away from the scene of crime. Neighbours gathered. When they went inside the house, they saw the deceased lying dead on the floor with cut injuries on her head and left forearm. She had succumbed to the injuries.
(c) PW
