Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1709
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.M. Sundresh, M. Nirmal Kumar, JJ.
Singaravelu & Another - Appellant
Versus
State represented by, The Inspector of Police, Tirupattur Taluk Police Station, (Crime No.403 of 2012) - Respondent
Crl.A.No. 500 of 2018
Decided On : 21-08-2019
For the Appellants :C.R. Malarvannan, V. Rajamohan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: R. Prathap Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 374 – Indian Penal Code - Section 506/302/294/323 - simple imprisonment – Offence of murder – Injury - trial Court - case of the prosecution is that on 16.07.2012 during the funeral procession of one Silambarasan there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and one Elango, who is the relative of the appellants and the appellants intervened in support of the said Elango. On 17.07.2012 at about 07.45 p.m, another quarrel ensued between the PW3 and the appellants over the previous incident which resulted in blood injuries to both parties and both the parties had gone to the hospital for treatment. On 18.07.2012 at about 06.00 p.m while the deceased Murugan and PW1 were having tea at Vengalapuram Kootu Road in Sankar’s Tea Shop – Held, In the instant case, the act of the 2nd appellant falls within the Second clause of Section 299 which comes within exceptions enumerated in Section 300. Hence the act of the 2nd appellant would be “Culpable homicide not amounting to murder”, punishable under the first part of Section 304 of IPC. The injury caused by the 2nd appellant is not of higher degree of likelihood which is covered by the expression “Sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death” but is of lower degree of likelihood which is generally spoken of as an injury “likely to cause death” and the case does not fall under clause (3) of Section 300 of IPC - From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a court is confronted with the question whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, on the facts of a case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be, whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for considering whether that act of the accused amounts to culpable homicide as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the operation of Section 300 of the Penal Code, is reached. This is the stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four clauses of the definition of murder contained in Section 300. If the answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under the first part of Section 304, of the Penal Code – Appeal Allowed
JUDGMENT :
M. Nirmal Kumar, J.
Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records in Sessions Case No.83 of 2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon them by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District in Sessions Case No.83 of 2014 and allow the appeal.
This appeal arises against the judgment of learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore passed in S.C.No.83 of 2014 on 06.08.2018, wherein the appellants were convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for offence under Section 302 of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default for three years simple imprisonment and they were senteced to undergo imprisonment for two years under Section 506(i) of IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default three months simple imprisonment. The 1st appellant is acquitted from the charges under Sections 294(b) of IPC. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case in brief:-
The case of the prosecution is that on 16.07.2012 during the funeral procession of one Silambarasan there was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and one Elango, who is the relative of the appellants and the appellants intervened in support of the said Elango. On 17.07.2012 at about 07.45 p.m, another quarrel ensued between the PW3 and the appellants over the previous incident which resulted in blood injuries to both parties and both the parties had gone to the hospital for treatment. On 18.07.2012 at about 06.00 p.m while the deceased Murugan and PW1 were having tea at Vengalapuram Kootu Road in Sankar’s Tea Shop, the appellants came with an intention to commit murder of the said Murugan, A1 stabbed the deceased with the chisel on the left side centre of abdomin, left side upper scapula and left elbow joint. The 2nd appellant stabbed on the right side back of Dorso with Knife by uttering abusive and intimidating words and caused the death. Further the appellants by showing the Knife and Chisel to the persons present around in the place of occurrence and threatened them that they would stab them if they intervene and left the scene of occurrence. Thereby the appellants have committed the murder of the deceased. PW1 along with his paternal uncle Mohan/PW2 brought the deceased to Hospital. The Doctor on examination informed that the deceased was already died. Thereafter, PW1 and PW2 went to Police station, gave complaint [Ex.P1]. PW2 signed as witness, his signature is Ex.P2. On receipt of the complaint [Ex.P1], a case was registered in Crime No.403 of 2012 [Ex.P16] for the offence under Sections 302, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of IPC. On completion of investigation and on filing of charge sheet the case was committal and the appellants were tried in S.C.No.83 of 2014 by the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirupattur, Vellore.
3. Before the trial Court, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and marked 22 exhibits and 8 material objects were seized. On the side of the defense, one witness has been examined and no exhibits marked.
3.1. PW1-Panneerselvam deposed that on 15.07.2012 one Silambarasan met with an accident and died. When he and his Junior paternal uncles the deceased and PW3 were in the funeral procession of Silambarasan, one Elango had danced in a drunken mood. The deceased asked him to stop the dance and pulled him out. Enraged over the same, the appellants who are the maternal uncles sons of Elango came in support of said Elango and fought with them. On 17.07.2012 PW1 on the way to home saw the said Elango shouting at the deceased and PW3 picked up a quarrel which led to a fight between them. The said Elango and the appellants attacked PW3. In that, the deceased and his father Perumal and both the groups sustained injuries. They were brought to hospital. PW1 further stated that on 18.07.201
