SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(Mad) 4465

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. Prakash, J.
S. Vinayagam - Appellant
Versus
State by Inspector of Police, Vellore - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 31 of 2011
Decided On : 10-12-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :V. Krishnamoorthy, Advocate.
For the Respondent:P. Kritika Kamal, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side).

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code - Section 307/ 302 and 498-A - Presence of the Assistant Surgeon - Seeking to set aside conviction and sentence imposed – Offence of murder – Injury – First Information Report - On the fateful day it is alleged that he doused her with kerosene and set her ablaze was in flames and unable to bear pain, she rushed out of her house and came to street and same was witnessed by her, viz. informed brother who was living nearby and he immediately rushed her to the hospital at by an auto rickshaw, where she was admitted as in-patient - On intimation by hospital authorities Sub Inspector of Police went there and recorded statement of based on which he registered a case in under Section 307 IPC against and prepared printed FIR – Held, In view of above discussion this Court holds that prosecution have proved their case beyond doubt - However though Trial Court has given a finding that it was who had poured kerosene on and set fire to her has been acquitted by Trial Court for the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted for the offence under Section 304(II) IPC on the reasoning that incident had occurred on account of sudden quarrel, thereby falling under Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC - This Court is unable to persuade itself to find any justification in the said reasoning. Exception 4 of Section 300 can be invoked only when it is shown that the act was committed without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel - On a reading of the dying declaration of it is seen that she has stated that on fateful day it was who quarreled with her while he was searching for his motor bike key being a male is in a dominant position physically qua victim a female - If by a single act, say slapping or hacking with a knife found nearby in a fit of passion upon a sudden quarrel one may invoke Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC - In this case has taken the kerosene can poured kerosene on thereafter he has taken the matchbox, ignited the matchstick and has set her ablaze by throwing the matchstick at her. One cannot say that all these three acts viz., taking the kerosene can and pouring kerosene on taking matchbox and igniting matchstick and throwing matchstick at were done in a trice in heat of passion - Dying declaration of also shows that suspected her fidelity and quarreled with her - She has also stated that would come home drunk and abuse her - This act of would fall within definition of word “crueltyunder Explanation (a) to Section 498-A IPC – Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant vide judgment dated 05.08.2010 in S.C. No.304 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred seeking to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused vide judgment dated 05.08.2010 in S.C. No.304 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District.

2. For the sake of convenience, the deceased, viz., Saritha and the accused, viz., Vinayagam, will be referred to by their name.

3. The case of the prosecution is as under:

3.1 The incident in this case occurred on 14.02.2009. Two years prior to the date of occurrence, Saritha got married to Vinayagam and theirs was a love marriage. They were living in Ilayanagaram. Vinayagam was working as Painter in Madurai and would go for work daily. Suspecting his wife's fidelity, he would pick quarrels with her frequently and assault her.

3.2 On the fateful day, viz., 14.02.2009, at 8.30 p.m., it is alleged that he doused her with kerosene and set her ablaze. Saritha was in flames and unable to bear the pain, she rushed out of her house and came to the street and the same was witnessed by her neighbours, viz., Gnanam (P.W.4), Maheswari (P.W.5), Rohini (P.W.6) and Govindasamy (P.W.7). Venkatesan (P.W.8) informed Saritha's brother Umapathy (P.W.1), who was living nearby and he immediately rushed her to the hospital at Vaniyambadi by an auto rickshaw, where, she was admitted as in-patient. On intimation by the hospital authorities, Chennaiyan (P.W.16), Sub Inspector of Police, went there and recorded the statement of Saritha, based on which, he registered a case in Cr. No.214 of 2009 on 15.02.2009 under Section 307 IPC against Vinayagam and prepared the printed FIR. The complaint and the FIR reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 16.02.2009 at 12.30 p.m.

3.3 The investigation of the case was taken over by Vincent Paul, Inspector of Police (P.W.17). In the meantime, a requisition was given to Mr. A. Murugan, Judicial Magistrate (P.W.12), to record the dying declaration of Saritha and accordingly, he came to the hospital on 15.02.2009 at 12.15 a.m. and recorded her dying declaration in the presence of the Assistant Surgeon, Vaniyambadi, who certified to the mental fitness of Saritha, to give statement.

3.4 Vincent Paul (P.W.17) went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.1) and the rough sketch (Ex.P.20). At the place of occurrence, he seized a ten-litre kerosene can (M.O.1), matchbox (M.O.2) under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.2) in the presence of Lakshmanan (P.W.9) and Sathyaraj (not examined). He recorded the statements of witnesses, viz., Umapathy (P.W.1), Loganathan (P.W.3), Gnanam (P.W.4), Maheswari (P.W.5), Rohini (P.W.6), Govindasamy (P.W.7), Venkatesan (P.W.8), Lakshmanan (P.W.9) and Sathyaraj (not examined). On 17.02.2009, he received intimation from the hospital that Saritha succumbed to the injuries and therefore, he filed an alteration report (Ex.P.21) altering the case from Section 307 IPC Chellapandiyan, Head Constable for postmortem. He recorded the further statement of the witnesses and arranged to have the statements of some of the important witnesses, including Loganathan (P.W.3), by a Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.P.C. Vinayagam surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambur, on 18.02.2009 and on intimation, the Investigating Officer made the necessary application to arrest him and take him into custody. On 26.02.2009, he took Vinayagam into police custody and on the disclosure made by Vinayagam, a dark colour pant (M.O.3) and a checked half sleeve shirt (M.O.4) were seized under the cover of mahazar (Ex.P.4) on 26.02.2009 in the presence of Mayilainathan, Village Administrative Officer (P.W.10) and Selvi, Village Adm

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top