Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
Sahabudeen and Ors. Appellants
Vs.
State - Respondent
Crl. A. (MD) No. 399 of 2017
Decided On : 16-09-2019
Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 300 – Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 304 - payment of rent – FIR - Complainant and father of deceased was running a guest house prior to the occurrence complainant had taken cooking vessels and utensils on lease from - It was taken on lease in order to enable grandson of complainant to feed the poor - There was some dispute between complainant with regard to the payment of rent for the vessels leased to the complainant amount remained unpaid by the complainant was putting pressure on the complainant to make the payment gave two days time for the complainant to make payment and the complainant was not able to make the amount ready and had sought for more time did not agree and therefore left with no other alternative complainant had handed over necklace and bracelet belong to his daughter and informed that he will get back jewels after paying the balance amount - After two or three days son of the complainant (deceased) came and met complainant and complainant asked deceased to pay the balance amount and get back the jewelry that was handed over to him by the complainant - Accordingly –Held, Case exception Section murder must have been committed without premeditation and in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without accused taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel and unusual manner - essence of Exception of Section is that heat of passion clouds sober reasoning and urges him commit certain acts which he would not have committed otherwise - There is an element of provocation even in Exception case even as per evidence who is the father of deceased there was no previous enmity between him - There was only some misunderstanding on the payment of amount towards taking utensils on leas - Therefore there was no premeditation on the part of accused persons to commit this murder - There was also quarrel between parties - There is nothing to show that there was a fight between parties word fight conveys something more than verbal quarrel - In order to constitute a fight a minimum that is necessary is that parties must come to blows with each other - There is no evidence to show that parties came to blows in this case and only evidence that is available is that there was a wordy quarrel that physically deceased and prevented him from moving and thereby enabled stab the deceased twice in vital parts chest and abdomen shows that the accused persons had taken undue advantage and caused the death of the deceased - This is further corroborated by nature of injuries that are found in postmortem report which has been extracted supra - Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
1. This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 01.09.2017 in S.C. No. 132/2015, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.
2. The Trial Court framed four charges, as detailed below.
| S. Nos. | Penal Provisions | Accused |
| 1 | 120(B) IPC | A1 to A4 |
| 2 | 342 IPC | A2 to A4 |
| 3 | 302 r/w 34 IPC | A2 to A4 |
| 4 | 302 IPC | A1 |
3. By Judgment dated 01.09.2017, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as detailed below:-
| Provisions under which convicted | Rank of the accused | Sentence of imprisonment | Fine amount |
| 342 IPC | A1 to A4 | To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year | Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. |
| 302 IPC | A1 | To undergo imprisonment for life. | Rs. 10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. |
| 302 r/w 34 IPC | A2 to A4 | To undergo imprisonment for life. | Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. |
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with this Criminal Appeal.
The case of the prosecution:
4. The complainant (P.W.-1 and father of deceased) was running a guest house at Keelakarai Taluk. 20 days prior to the occurrence, the complainant had taken cooking vessels and utensils on lease from A-2. It was taken on lease in order to enable the grandson of the complainant to feed the poor. There was some dispute between A-2 and the complainant with regard to the payment of rent for the vessels leased to the complainant. The amount of Rs. 15,000/- remained unpaid by the complainant to A-2 and A-2 was putting pressure on the complainant to make the payment. A-2 gave two days time for the complainant to make the payment and the complainant was not able to make the amount ready and had sought for more time. A-2 did not agree and therefore, left with no other alternative, the complainant had handed over the necklace and bracelet belong to his daughter to A-2 and informed A-2 that he will get back the jewels after paying the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/-. After two or three days, the son of the complainant (deceased) came and met the complainant and the complainant asked the deceased to pay the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- to A-2 and get back the jewelry that was handed over to him by the complainant. Accordingly, on 13.11.2014, at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased had gone to the shop of A-2 and gave him the balance amount of Rs. 15,000/- and demanded for the jewels. A-2 is alleged to have refused to return back the jewels on the premise that one more vessel is yet to be returned back and till the same is returned back, the jewels will not be returned. This resulted in a quarrel for nearly 15 minutes and it is stated that P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 attempted to intervene and pacify the parties. However, by then, A-2, his son (A-3) and his brother (A-4), caught hold of the deceased and A-1 stabbed the deceased in his chest and his abdomen and the deceased fell down. Immediately, all the accused persons ran away from the place.
5. This was informed over phone by P.W.-2 to P.W.-1 and P.W.-1 rushed to the scene of occurrence, where, he found his son lying in a pool of blood. He was immediately taken in an auto-rickshaw, driven by P.W.-6 and taken to the hospital at Keelakarai and P.W.-1 was informed that his son has been brought dead and the same was recorded in Ex. P.-16 Accident Register at about 3.25 p.m. by P.W.-11, who was the Assistant Surgeon. Thereafter, a complaint (Ex. P-1) is said to have been given by P.W.-1 at about 6.00 p.m. before the respondent police and it was received by P.W. 15, who was the Special Sub Inspector of Police a
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
