IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.T. SELVAM, N.SATHISH KUMAR, JJ.
K.Venkatesan - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by its Inspector of Police - Respondent
Crl.A.No.597 of 2017
Decided on : 05-03-2018
Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 300, 302, 294, 304, 324, 307 – Order of Conviction – Offence of Murder – Appellant/sole accused was tried in SC.No.45/2012 for commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC – Trial Court, vide judgment found the appellant/accused guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year – Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant herein. – Held, Court find that there is no pre meditation on the part of the accused. – Occurrence took place due to sudden quarrel among the family members. – Further injury on Groin of the deceased which was not fatal. – According to the eye witness, the accused pushed the deceased and the deceased fell down, according to medical evidence the deceased died due to the head injury. – Court is of the view that the act of the accused is certainly comes under exception 4 of Section 300 IPC. – Hence, the only knowledge can be attributed to the accused for such act of pushing down the deceased which would likely to cause death. – From the above circumstances, we are of the view that only the offence under Section 304(2) IPC would be made out but not the offence under section 302 IPC. – Accordingly, the appellant can be convicted only for the offence under Section 304(2) IPC and not under Section 302 IPC. – Criminal Appeal Disposed of.
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
1. The appellant/sole accused was tried in SC.No.45/2012 for commission of the offence u/s.302 IPC. The Trial Court, vide judgment dated 29.01.2015 found the appellant/accused guilty of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and also pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellant herein.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case as follows:
The accused is the husband of PW3. PW1 is the mother in law of the accused and the mother of the PW3. PW2 is aunty of PW3. PW3 and accused were residing separately at Door No.81, Durga Devi Street, Anbu Nagar, Thiruverkadu and they have two minor female children. PW3 was working in a company and the accused was working as a loadman. In order to maintain her children, PW2 was allowed to live with PW3 and accused. The accused used to quarrel with PW3 frequently. On 07.11.2011, as usual PW3 returned from the work, the accused started quarrel with PW3 as to why she has not made any food for dinner and beat PW3, when the same was questioned by PW2, the accused asked her not to interfere with the family matter. PW2 informed the same to PW1 and the deceased, who is the husband of PW1. When PW1 and her husband namely the deceased, went to the house of the PW3 and questioned the accused. The accused stabbed the deceased with scissor (MO1) on his groin. Besides, he also pushed the deceased, as a result, the deceased fell down and sustained head injury. Immediately, PW4, the brother of PW3 took the deceased to A.C.S.Hospital, from there, they took him to Kilpauk Medical College Hospital, thereafter to General Hospital and later took him to Malar Hospitals.
3. However, on 13.11.2011 the injured succumbed to injury. While the deceased was in the hospital on 08.11.2011, the statement was recorded and the same was marked as Ex.P1. PW5, the friend of PW4 also rushed to the hospital and written a complaint as instructed by PW1. PW6, Medical Officer attached to the Kilpauk Medical College Hospital on 07.11.2011 at about 9.50 p.m. admitted the deceased in respect of which he has issued Ex.P2. PW7 also a medical officer attached to Government General Hospital, admitted the deceased in the hospital and treated the deceased and the deceased was died on 13.11.2011 early morning at about 4.11 a.m.
4. In the meanwhile, PW9, Medical Officer attached to the Madras Medical College, conducted autopsy (post mortem) and issued Ex.P3, i.e. Post mortem certificate and opined that the deceased died due to head injuries and also shock and haemorrhage, wherein, he had noting down the following:
Injuries:
(1) A4 x 3.5 OMX cavity deep laceration of the (RT) side of lower part of testes was seen, exposing the testis on the (RT) side. The skin edge were irregular and contused and partly healed.
(2)A4 x 2.5 cm x cavity deep partly healed laceration was seen in the lower part of LT side of the scrotum.
Cronitonus wound:
A33 cm long sutured wound was seen on the top of front of the head. The skin edges were clean cut and contused. The wound was closed with 32 sutures. The underlying seal was contused. & bun Holes were seen in the front part of the skull. A 16 x8 cm area of bone flap was found removed from the frontal region. Diffuse Sub Dura Haomonhoge was all over the brain surface. A layer of contusion and laceration was seen on the surface of the LT frontral lobe of the brain with intra Cerebral Head in the LT and also RT fronted lobes of the brain. There was contusion of the base both frontal lobe of the brain. C/s. Fluid blood was seen in both lateral ventricles of the brain.
5. PW10 is also the medical officer of Malar Hospital, on 08.11.2011, in fact he admitted the deceased and issued Ex.P5. PW12 the Medical Officer of A.C.S.Hospital has also noted injuries on the deceased on 07.11.2011 in their hospital and issued Ex.P8.
6. PW13 received a complain
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.