Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1048
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T. Raja, B. Pugalendhi, JJ.
Murugesan & Another – Appellants
Versus
State rep. by the Inspector of Police & Others – Respondents
Criminal Appeal (MD).Nos. 48 & 367 of 2018
Decided On : 07-02-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :J. Sulthan Basha, Advocate.
For the Respondent:R. Anandharaj, Additional Public Prosecutor, S. Mahendrapathy, Advocate.
Headnote:
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 372 – India Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 34 and 506 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 – Offence of murder - House of his in-laws to bring back his wife and children - Due misunderstanding between deceased went to her parents house two days prior to date of occurrence and was staying there along with her two children - On day of Diwali deceased was worried that his family is away from home and requested his elder brother accompany him to visit house of his in laws to bring back his wife and children – Held, Occurrence has taken place in house of accused when deceased came to house of accused to call his wife - Subsequent occurrence alone was witnessed by accused has caused fatal injury pursuant to same deceased died - There is no premeditation on part of accused commit offence - Occurrence had taken place in spur of moment when deceased came to house and insisted his wife to come with him - Since occurrence had taken place in spur of moment without any premeditation accused is found guilty of offence Section instead - Insofar as other accused respondents is concerned respondent accused is reported to have died pending these appeals and therefore charge made against her stands abated - With regard to respondent no specific overt act is attributed and moreover has witnessed only subsequent incident took place outside house - They have not caused any fatal injury to deceased - Since these appeals are on an order of acquittal this Court is not inclined to reverse finding as against other accused and finding rendered by trial Court is confirmed insofar as accused are concerned – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
B. Pugalendhi, J.
(Common Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated 22.08.2017 in S.C.No.98/2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam.)
1. As against the order of acquittal passed in S.C.No.98/2016 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Theni at Periyakulam, the defacto complainant and the State have preferred these Appeals, i.e., Crl. Nos. 48/2018 and 367/2018 respectively.
2. The respondents/accused 1 to 5 have been charged for the offences as under:
| Charge Nos. | Rank of the Accused | Offence under Sections |
| 1 | A-2 to A-4 | 302 r/w 34 IPC |
| 2 | A-2 to A-4 | 342 IPC |
| 3 | A-1 | 302 IPC |
| 4 | A1 to A-4 | 506(II) IPC |
| 5 | A-5 | 302 r/w 109 IPC |
In conclusion of the trial, the trial Court acquitted all the accused from all the charges levelled against them and as against the same, the defacto complainant as well as the State have preferred the instant appeals.
3. The Accused No.1 is the brother-in-law of the deceased; accused No.2 is the father-in-law of the deceased; A-3 is the mother-in-law of the deceased; A-4 is the aunt of accused No.1; A-5 is the wife of the deceased.
4. The brief facts of the case, in nutshell, are as follows:
4.1. The accused No.5 Viji is the wife of the deceased Murugaraj. Out of the wedlock, they have two female children, namely, P.W.-2 Atchaya Varshini and another. Due to misunderstanding between the deceased and A-5, A-5 went to her parents' house two days prior to the date of occurrence and was staying there along with her two children. On 10.11.2015, on the day of Diwali, the deceased Murugaraj was worried that his family is away from home and requested his elder brother P.W.-1 Murugesan to accompany him to visit the house of his in-laws to bring back his wife and children. Accordingly, P.W.-1 and the deceased went in a motorcycle to the house of the accused. P.W.-1 refused to go inside the house and was waiting outside the house of the accused and the deceased alone went inside the house. After sometime, around 11.30 p.m., the deceased was coming out with a stab injury by alarming that they are killing him and all the accused came out of the house and even in the presence of P.W.-1, the accused No.1 stabbed the deceased on his neck and chest. The accused have also criminally intimidated P.W.-1.
4.2. P.W.-1 ran to his relative's house, who were residing in the same village and along with them, they went to the place of occurrence again and even before they reached, the deceased was taken to the Periyakulam Government Hospital by the accused persons and at about 00.30 hours on 11.11.2015, the Doctor (P.W.-22), who examined the deceased reported that he was brought dead. He also issued an Accident Register (Ex.P-14).
4.3. After the death of the deceased, P.W.-1 lodged a complaint before the Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.-11) and the same was registered in Crime No.706/2015 under Sections 302 r/w 34 and 506(II) IPC against the accused persons.
4.4. On receipt of the intimation, P.W.-23 went to the place of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar and a rough sketch (Ex.P.-8 and Ex.P-15) on 11.11.2015 in the presence of witnesses and after completing the investigation, he filed a final report as against the respondents 2 to 5.
4.5. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 23 witnesses were examined and 18 documents have been marked besides 13 material objects.
5. The available evidences from the prosecution witness are as follows:
(i) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased and he speaks about the lodging of the complaint. He is an eye witness to the occurrence and he speaks about the involvement of the accused in the occurrence.
(ii) P.W.2 is the daughter of the deceased and A-5 and she is also an eye witness to the occurrence.
(iii) P.W.3 is the brother of t
