Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.T.Selvam, A.D.Jagadish Chandira, JJ.
Ramasamy – Appellant
Versus
State by the Inspector of Police Erode Taluk Police Station Erode – Respondent
Crl.A.No.674 of 2017
Decided On : 05-02-2019
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 300,302,304(ii),307 - Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act,1998 - Section 4 – Offence of Murder – Attempt To murder – Deceased is wife of Appellant/accused and they were living with their son and his wife - There were quarrels and disputes between deceased and Appellant/accused since Appellant was in illicit relationship with another lady - Pursuant to a quarrel between accused and deceased Appellant/accused with an intention to murder his wife assaulted on her head with a casuarina log due to which she sustained grievous injuries and immediately she was admitted in Government Hospital Erode and thereafter after five days referred to Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital Salem for further treatment where she died - Gave a complaint Sub Inspector of Police Erode Taluk Police Station and on receipt of said complaint registered a case in under Section 307 of IPC and Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act and prepared a First Information Report under and sent case papers to Higher Officials-Inspector of Police took up case for further investigation and went to scene of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch under and a observation - He seized in presence of witnesses - He arrested accused and recorded his voluntary confession - Since he came to know that deceased died he altered Section from 307 of IPC into Section 302 of IPC and sent alteration report to Judicial Magistrate Erode under hours he went to hospital and conducted inquest and prepared a inquest report under - After examining witnesses and recording their statements he sent body of deceased to Hospital for post-mortem - After completion of investigation he laid a final report against appellant/accused for offence under Section 302 IPC - Held, Court are convinced that act of Appellant/accused was not preplanned or premeditated but had been committed by a husband in an inebriated condition during a domestic quarrel in a fit of anger whilst deprived of his power of self control and thereby case would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC - In order to fit in a case within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC all ingredients mentioned must be satisfied - Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and it is immaterial in such cases which party offers provocation or commits first assault - Further from perusal of evidence in case on hand there is no premeditation or pre-plan and Appellant/accused has not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner and incident had happened in a heat of passion during a domestic quarrel - Facts of present case indicate that all te ingredients of Exception to Section 300 of IPC are present - In similar same view has been taken by Honourable Supreme Court in decisions reported Moreover in this case incident had happened and victim was admitted in Government Hospital Erode and thereafter since her condition became critical she was referred to Medical College Hospital Salem for further treatment where she breathed her last - Admittedly though two Doctors have been examined no evidence has been let in by Prosecution regarding nature of treatment given and that injury sustained by victim was sufficient to cause death - Taking into consideration nature of injuries and also time gap between time of infliction of injury till of death after injury was inflicted and there being no sufficient material produced with regard to nature of treatment given and that injury sustained by victim was sufficient to cause death Honourable Supreme Court in has that since it had not conclusively said that injury suffered was sufficient to cause death offence will fall under Section 304(ii) of IPC - Decision of Honourable Supreme Court reported in cited supra has also been followed by Division Bench of this Court in Rajan and others v State by Inspector of Police and in a latter decision of this Court MWN Thamilarasan and Others v State by Inspector of Police,Sirkazhi in entirety considering facts of case legal evidence on record and in background of legal principles laid down Court come to inevitable conclusion that all requirements under Section 300 Exception have been satisfied and appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 (ii) of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC - Criminal Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT :
A.D. Jagadish Chandira, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed, against the judgment of conviction and sentence, dated 31.05.2017, made in SC.No.16 of 2017, on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-Mahalir Neethi Mandram (FTC Mahila Court) Erode, thereby convicting and sentencing the Appellant/accused, for the offence under Section 302 of IPC to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment.
2. The case of the Prosecution is as follows :-
(a). The deceased, Perumayee is the wife of the Appellant/accused and they were living with their son, Erusappan, PW.1 and his wife, Rukmani, PW.2. There were quarrels and disputes, between the deceased and the Appellant/accused, since the Appellant was in illicit relationship with another lady. On 13.10.2014, at 6.15 p.m. pursuant to a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, the Appellant/accused, with an intention to murder his wife, assaulted on her head, with a casuarina log, due to which she sustained grievous injuries and immediately, she was admitted in the Government Hospital, Erode and thereafter, after five days, referred to Mohan Kumaramangalam Medical College Hospital, Salem, for further treatment, where she died on 18.10.2014 at 10.10. a.m.
(b). On 13.10.2014 at 11.00 p.m., the PW.1 gave a complaint, Ex.P1 to PW.15, Sub Inspector of Police, Erode Taluk Police Station, and on receipt of the said complaint, PW.15 registered a case in Cr.No.265 of 2014 under Section 307 of IPC and Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Woman Act and prepared a First Information Report, under Ex.P11 and sent the case papers to the Higher Officials.
(c). PW.16, Inspector of Police, took up the case for further investigation and went to the scene of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch under Ex.P12 and a observation mahazar. He seized MO.1 in the presence of the witnesses. On 14.10.2014, at 13.00 hours, he arrested the accused and recorded his voluntary confession. Since he came to know that on 18.10.2014, at 10.10 a.m. the deceased died, he altered the Section from 307 of IPC into Section 302 of IPC and sent the alteration report to the Judicial Magistrate I, Erode, under Ex.P13. At 13.30 hours, he went to the hospital and conducted inquest and prepared a inquest report under Ex.P14. After examining the witnesses and recording their statements, he sent the body of the deceased to the Hospital for post-mortem. After completion of the investigation, on 15.4.2015, he laid a final report against the appellant/accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
3. The case was taken on file in SC.No.16 of 2017, by the Additional Sessions Judge-Mahalir Neethi Mandram (FTC Mahila Court) Erode and necessary charges were framed. In order to bring home the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses as PW.1 to PW.16 and also marked Exs.P1 to P14 and MO.1. On completion of the evidence on the side of the Prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.PC as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused has come with the version of total denial and stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case and sought for trial.
4. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also looking into the materials available on record, found the accused/appellant guilty and awarded punishments as referred to above, which is challenged in this Criminal Appeal.
5. This court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side.
6. The learned counsel for the Appellant, while assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, would contend that the Prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case, by adducing clear and consistent evidence. The learned counsel would alternatively contend that even in the event of accepting the case of the Prosecution that the Appellant is guilty of causing the
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
