Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 796
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VIMALA, T. KRISHNAVALLI, JJ.
Muthupandi @ Muthukalai - Appellant
Versus
State through the Inspector of Police, Chokampatti Police Station, Tenkasi, Tirunelveli District - Respondent
Crl.A. (MD) No. 55 of 2018 & Crl.M.P (MD) No. 794 of 2018
Decided On : 15-02-2018
For the Appellant :R. Alagumani, Advocate.
For the Respondent: K.S. Duraipandian, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of proving motive for the occurrence and the interpretation of medical evidence in determining the nature of the offense.
Headnote:
IPC - Murder - Section 302 IPC, Section 506(ii) IPC - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the delay in filing the complaint, the motive for the occurrence, the medical evidence, and the intention of the accused. The key legal provisions interpreted include the definition of murder under Section 302 IPC, the requirement of proving motive, and the significance of medical evidence in determining the nature of the offense.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant brutally attacked and murdered the deceased, allegedly due to a previous dispute. The delay in filing the complaint and the motive for the occurrence were contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in filing the complaint did not affect the merits of the prosecution case. It held that the motive for the occurrence was not proved by the prosecution. The court also analyzed the medical evidence and concluded that the accused's act amounted to culpable homicide, not amounting to murder.
Issues: The issues included the delay in filing the complaint, the motive for the occurrence, and the nature of the accused's act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of the delay, motive, and medical evidence, leading to the modification of the conviction from murder to culpable homicide.
Final Decision: The conviction and sentence for murder were modified to culpable homicide, resulting in the accused being acquitted of the murder charge and held responsible for culpable homicide. The accused was ordered to be set at liberty.
S. VIMALA, J.
1. The accused was found guilty under Sections 302 IPC and 506(ii) IPC. The conviction and sentence is as follows:
| Sl. No. | Offence | Conviction and Sentence |
| 1. | Section 302 IPC | Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment |
| 2. | Section 506(ii) IPC | one year Rigorous Imprisonment |
Challenging both the conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this appeal.
The facts in brief:
2. On 23.05.2012 at 5:00 am in the early morning, the appellant brutally attacked the deceased by name Sangaiathevar by using wooden log and caused grievous injuries in the forehead, right eyebrow and in the head and thus committed murder of the deceased. It is alleged that the defacto complainant was threatened by the accused in the same incident and to cause intimidation, knife was used.
2.1. In respect of this occurrence, a case has been registered in Crime No.102 of 2012 on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant. After investigation, charge sheet was laid before the concerned Court. On denial of charges, in order to substantiate the offence against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses, marked 18 documents and exhibited 5 MOs.
2.2. It is alleged that the murder in this case is intentional and there was a clear motive for the accused in causing the death of the deceased. The motive for the occurrence is stated to be an incident that occurred nearly one year before. Allegedly, during night hours, one Shanmugathai was taking water using the hand pump, which created a disturbing sounds and that irked the accused and the accused picked up quarrel on the ground that the noise created disturbance to his sleep; on account of the wordy altercations, the accused attacked the deceased and PW1 (husband of the grand daughter of the deceased) with stick and in respect of the same, FIR was registered and after trial, the accused was found guilty and he was imprisoned for a period of 10 months and thereafter, the accused was released. This heart burning for the accused is stated to be the motive for the murder of the deceased.
2.3. On 23.05.2012, PW1 came to the village of the deceased for temple festival and at about 5:00am., PWs. 1 & 2 along with the deceased went to the bus stop and at that time, the accused attacked the deceased by using the wooden log and when this attempt was sought to be thwarted by PWs.1 and 2, the accused threatened them by showing the knife and escaped from that place. PW1 preferred the complaint at about 7:00am and it has been received by the Judicial Magistrate at about 10:35pm.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that this unexplained delay of 15 hours 35 minutes is the time taken for setting up witnesses for the occurrence and therefore, Ex.P1 / complaint could not have been preferred at the time alleged and PWs.1 & 2 could not have been the eyewitnesses to the occurrence.
3.1. For this contention, the learned counsel for the appellant found corroboration from the evidence of PW9, where he would state that even before the receipt of complaint from PW1, the Police officials received information by phone and they were in the place of occurrence before the receipt of complaint. The genuineness of the Ex.P1 / complaint is also disputed by pointing out the contradictions in the evidence of Pws.1 & 9; PW1 would state that immediately after the occurrence, as the shops were not opened, he went to the Police Station and after receiving papers from Police Station, he gave the written complaint, whereas PW9 would state that PW1 brought the written complaint and thumb impression of PW1 was very well available in the complaint.
4. Whether this could be stated to be material contradiction affecting the veracity of Ex.P1 / complaint is the issue to be decided. Consequently, whether the delay in
