Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2284
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, N. ANAND VENKATESH, JJ.
R. Pandi @ Pandian – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Sempatti Police Station, Dindigul – Respondents
Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 376 of 2017
Decided on : 07-11-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :E. Somasundaram, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S. Chandra Sekar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.
Headnote:
Constitution of India1950 - Article 21 - Indian Penal Code1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code1973 - Section 374 - FIR - Murder - Appellant/accused and deceased are husband and wife and were blessed with two children- It was alleged who is far of deceased that one day prior to death of her daughter deceased called him over phone and stated that she was not prepared to live with her husband pursuant to his continuous torture and cruelty which forced come to matrimonial house of his daughter and after extending advice to his son-in-law he fell asleep - It was further alleged that on fateful day hearing screaming sound of deceased he came out of his house along with his wife and noticed that accused/his son-in-law after attacking her daughter/deceased on her head with ran away from scene of occurrence - It was stated that accused had developed an illegal intimacy with and when it was questioned by deceased accused had committed murder of deceased- deceased after revealing truth that her husband had attacked her with had succumbed to death and all rushed to scene of occurrence on account of huge noise raised thereafter Police -Held, Counsel scrutiny of deposition /sisters of deceased unravels fact that accused always suspected that deceased was having extra marital relationship with one President and infuriated by same and at spur of moment accused had attacked deceased and caused her death- To add further had also deposed that similarly accused was also having an illicit relationship with one and after paying a sum accused was separated from her- Thus evidence clearly shows that re were frequent quarrels and exchange of heated argument between deceased and accused case under above exception first stage is to see if accused has done any act which has caused death- Once Court is satisfied with first stage it leads to second stage order to see if act of accused person amounts to “culpable homicide” as defined Section Indian Penal Code and if answer of this question is found in affirmative Court has reach next stage to consider operation of Section Indian Penal Code and see act can be brought under any one of four limbs of Section Indian Penal Code- If answer for this question is in negative offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under first and second part of Section Indian Penal code- If question is found to be positive n Court has to see if act comes within any of exceptions enumerated case it is found that appellant was completely deprived of power of self-control due to grave and sudden provocation and he caused death of deceased by attacking her - It found that appellant had not voluntarily provoked himself and re were obviously earlier fights between parties for a very long time and pursuant to verbal fight that took place on date of occurrence entire incident had occurred- therefore this convinced that facts of present case falls and consequently it culpable homicide not amounting to murder consideration and circumstances of case and in view of above discussions Court is of considered view that conviction and sentence passed by Court below requires modification as facts of present case clearly falls Exception Section Indian Penal Code and refore appellant is convicted for “culpable homicide not amounting to murder appellant shall be entitled for set off in accordance with Section 428 of Code of Criminal Procedure for period of detention already undergone by him- appellant is directed to immediately surrender before concerned jurisdictional Magistrate and on such surrender appellant shall be confined in jail to undergo remaining period of sentence if any- It is made clear that if appellant fails to surrender before concerned Court respondent police shall secure appellant and produce him before Magistrate and thereafter shall be confined to prison - Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
S. Vaidyanathan, J. & N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to call for the records and set aside the judgment dated 12.04.2016 passed in S.C.No.106 of 2012 on the file of the learned Mahila Court (Fast Track Court), Dindigul and acquit the Appellant/Sole Accused of the charge.)
“Creating a circle of healthy atmosphere by way of pleasing intimacy in the middle of a crowd is different from developing an illegal intimacy with an opposite partner and such kind of illegal intimacy will rather ruin not only the entire family, but also the society. The present case is a perfect example, in which the family of the accused and the deceased got collapsed on account of their illegal intimacy with each other, which ultimately ended in the death of the wife.”
The Appellant herein, who is the Sole Accused in S.C.No.106 of 2012 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Dindigul, stands convicted by the Trial Court for an offence under Section 302 IPC as follows:
| Sl.No. | Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. | Section 302 IPC | To undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to pay fine to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year. |
Aggrieved by the order of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Fast Track Court, Dindigul, the Appellant has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court. During pendency of the appeal, this Court, by its order dated 04.10.2017, had suspended the substantive sentence of imprisonment and thereby, the Appellant is on bail now.
2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell was that the Appellant/accused and the deceased Ramathilaka are husband and wife and were blessed with two children. It was alleged by P.W.1, who is the father of the deceased that one day prior to the death of her daughter, the deceased called him over phone and stated that she was not prepared to live with her husband, pursuant to his continuous torture and cruelty, which forced P.W.1 to come to the matrimonial house of his daughter and after extending advice to his son-in-law, he fell asleep.
3. It was further alleged that on the fateful day, viz., 03.08.2009 at about 04.00 a.m., after hearing the screaming sound of the deceased, he came out of his house along with his wife and noticed that the accused/his son-in-law, after attacking her daughter/deceased on her head with Aruval, ran away from the scene of occurrence. It was stated that the accused had developed an illegal intimacy with one Mariammal and when it was questioned by the deceased, the accused had committed murder of the deceased. The deceased, after revealing the truth that her husband had attacked her with Aruval, had succumbed to death and all the neighbours rushed to the scene of occurrence on account of the huge noise raised by P.W.1. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to Sempatti Police Station and gave a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.9) on 03.08.2009 at about 6.30 a.m. Based on the complaint received from P.W.1, an FIR was registered (Ex.P.6) under Section 302 IPC.
4. After a detailed investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Dindigul in P.R.C.No.22 of 2010 and was subsequently, committed to the Court of Sessions as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. for trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offence against the accused, had examined 23 witnesses, marked 16 documents and exhibited 3 Material Objects and on the side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor documents marked. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted him as stated supra.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that though P.W.1, who
