Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2864
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
S. Vaidyanathan, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
B. Anandhan – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl. A. (MD) No. 409 of 2017
Decided On : 16-10-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K. Samidurai.
For the Respondent: S. Chandrasekar.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 307 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 161(3) – FIR – Investigation - Appellant due to death of one deceased was coming near house one at Post Office North Street appellant is said to have developed a wordy quarrel and lifted deceased and dropped him upside down resulting in deceased sustaining head injury and he started bleeding from his nostrils and ear deceased was immediately taken to Government Hospital and from there he was referred to Government Hospital Madurai for further treatment deceased ultimately succumbed to injuries on Complaint and materials collected during course of investigation father of deceased gave a complaint before Sub Inspector of Police at - On receipt of complaint registered –Held, Investigation was immediately taken up by Inspector of same day and has visited scene of crime on same day and prepared observation rough sketch and also recovered material objects - After the deceased died FIR was altered and the express FIR was taken and submitted to Judicial Magistrate about - Therefore at no stage there is any delay on part of prosecution and the investigation has taken place in proper manner case there was a previous enmity and the complaint shows that appellant and the deceased were under the influence of alcohol and there was a wordy quarrel between both of them before the incident appellant is said to have lifted the deceased and dropped him upside down resulting in a head injury to the deceased. The deceased had died nearly four days after the incident consideration is regarding the punishment imposed to the appellant. The facts of this case shows that the appellant should have had knowledge his act is likely to cause death since deceased was dropped upside down in a cement floor - However this was done without any intention to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as likely to cause death - Therefore on facts of present case this Court is of considered view that appellant has to be punished appellant is punished part Section and he is directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and to pay a fine and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months period of detention already undergone by the appellant is ordered -Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. The sole accused, aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul made in S.C. No. 45/2016 dated 06.07.2017, has filed this appeal before this Court.
2. The trial Court convicted the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year.
Brief Facts of the case of the prosecution:
3. The deceased Murugan is the son of the de-facto complainant Muthu (PW-1). There was a previous enmity between the deceased and the appellant due to the death of one Mayandi. On 16.09.2013, at about 4.30 p.m. when the deceased Murugan was coming near the house of one Singaraj at Post Office North Street, Theppathupatti, the appellant is said to have developed a wordy quarrel and lifted the deceased and dropped him upside down resulting in the deceased sustaining head injury and he started bleeding from his nostrils and ear. The deceased was immediately taken to the Government Hospital at Batlagundu and from there, he was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, for further treatment. The deceased ultimately succumbed to the injuries on 20.09.2013 at about 8.25 a.m.
Complaint and the materials collected during the course of investigation:
4. The father of the deceased (PW-1) gave a complaint (Ex. P-1) before the Sub Inspector of Police (PW-17) on 16.09.2013 at about 22.30 hours. On receipt of the complaint, PW-17 registered an FIR in Crime No. 96/2013 for an offence under Section 307 IPC. After the death of the deceased on 20.09.2013, the FIR was altered for an offence under Section 302 IPC and the express FIR was taken by the Head Constable (PW-16) to the Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai at about 12.45 p.m.
5. The investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police (PW-20) on 17.09.2013 and he went to the scene of occurrence at about 6.00 a.m. and in the presence of the witnesses (PW-12 and PW-13), he prepared the observation mahazar (Ex. P-7) and the rough sketch (Ex. P-13). He also recovered the material objects from the scene of occurrence (M.O.1 and M.O.2). The Investigating Officer proceeded to arrest the appellant on 17.09.2013 at about 12 noon. The appellant voluntarily gave a confession statement and the same was recorded in the presence of witnesses (PW-15 and PW-19). Thereafter, the appellant was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court and he was remanded to judicial custody.
6. The Investigating Officer proceeded to record the statement of the witnesses under Section 161(3) Cr.P.C. He received the information regarding the death of Murugan and the FIR was altered, which has been marked as Ex. P-14 and the investigation proceeded for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The body of the deceased was handed over to the Head Constable (PW-18) with a requisition for conducting postmortem and to hand over the body to the relatives after the completion of the postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by PW-10 and he prepared the postmortem certificate (Ex. P-6). The injuries as found in the postmortem certificate is extracted hereunder:
“The following ante mortem injuries are noted on the body:
1. Subscalpal contusion of 33 cm x 5 cm x bone deep noted over the right fronto parieto temporal region.
On dissection: 8 burr holes noted.
2. Skull bone of 72 cm x 11 cm surgically removed and packed with gel foam material.
3. Fracture noted on the middle of the anterior cranial fossa.
4. Diffused subdural hemorrhage and subarachnoid hemorrhage noted over both the cerebral hemispheres.
....
Opinion - The deceased would appear to have died of head injury, 6-10 hours prior to autopsy.
The postmortem Doctor gave a final opinion to the effect that the deceased died due to head injury.”
7. The investigating officer thereafter proceeded to record the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. of the other witnesses including the Doctors and collected the postmortem certificate. The material objec
