Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 1856
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
T. RAJA, B. PUGALENDHI, JJ.
M. Thangaraj & Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur & Others – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD) Nos. 25 of 2014, 93 & 94 of 2018
Decided on : 24-09-2020
R. Anandaraj, Additional Public Prosecutor, T. Lajapathi Roy, K. Suresh, Advocates.
Headnote:
Boundary Dispute - Criminal Law - Section 302 IPC, Section 304(ii) IPC - The judgment discusses the occurrence of a double murder resulting from a boundary dispute between the accused and the deceased. The court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC but guilty for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC due to the absence of premeditation or intention to commit murder. The judgment also highlights the lack of evidence to support the prosecution's case and the defense's claim of self-defense.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a boundary dispute between the accused and the deceased, resulting in a double murder. The accused were found not guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC but guilty for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC but guilty for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC due to the absence of premeditation or intention to commit murder.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the boundary dispute and the circumstances leading to the double murder.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence to support the prosecution's case and the defense's claim of self-defense.
Final Decision: All the Criminal Appeals were dismissed, and the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, in S.C.No.53 of 2012, dated 14.09.2013, stands confirmed. The first accused was to undergo the remaining period of the sentence.
JUDGMENT :
B. Pugalendhi, J.
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.53 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Karur District, dated 14.09.2013 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellant.
Appeal filed under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.53 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Karur District, dated 14.09.2013 and set aside the same and to convict the accused.
Appeal filed to call for the entire records connected to the judgment in S.C.No.53 of 2012 on the file of the Sessions Court, Karur District, dated 14.09.2013 and enhance the conviction and sentence imposed against the accused.)
1. The criminal appeal in Crl.A(MD)No.25 of 2014 is filed by the first accused in S.C.No.53 of 2012, on the file of the Sessions Court, Karur, as against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court in S.C.No.53 of 2012, dated 14.09.2013. The first accused, namely, Thangaraj @ Ponnusamy was tried along with his wife/the second accused, namely, Dhanam @ Dhanalakshmi for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 14.09.2013, found both the accused not guilty for the offence under Section 302 IPC, but, found the first accused guilty for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-, i/d to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Aggrieved, the first accused has preferred Crl.A. (MD)No.25 of 2014.
2. The defacto complainant [PW1], namely, Santhi, filed Crl.A(MD)Nos.93 & 94 of 2018 as against the judgment of acquittal of the second accused and the first accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
3. Since all the appeals are filed as against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Karur, in S.C.No. 53 of 2012, dated 14.09.2013, all the appeals are taken up together and disposed of by way of this common judgment. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.
4. The brief facts of the prosecution case, in a nutshell, are as follows:
4.1. This is a case of double murder. The first accused and the deceased are close relatives. Murugesan [D1] is a patrikin of the first accused. Murugesan [D1] and the first accused are having some lands at Pugalur RS. The first accused has constructed a house in his land in S.No.1079, which is adjacent to the land of Murugesan [D1]. Murugesan [D1] was having a grievance that the first accused has encroached a portion of his land and also constructed the house. While so, the first accused has completed the construction and also performed the house warming ceremony on 03.06.2011. On 17.06.2011, at about 06.45 am, when Murugesan [D1] visited his land along with his Wife [PW1] and Mother, Arukani [D2], they found the boundary stones of their land were removed. Murugesan [D1] and Arukani [D2], by collecting a crowbar from the neighbours, attempted to erect the boundary stones, which were removed and at that time, the first accused and his wife/the second accused abused them with filthy words. The first accused, with a casuarina wooden log, attacked Murugesan [D1] and the second accused took a block stone and threw the same on the head of Arukani [D2]. Both D1 and D2 sustained grievous injuries and PW1 raised hue and cry. On hearing the alarm raised by PW1, PWs.2 to 4 witnessed the occurrence and came to their rescue.
4.2. Both D1 and D2 were taken to the Government Hospital, Velayuthampalayam, where D1 was declared dead. Arukani [D2] was taken to a Private Hospital, namely, Amaravathi Hospital, Karur, at about 07.25 am, on 17.06.2011 and Dr.Velusamy [PW15] provided first aid treatment and recorded the injuries in the Accident Register [Ex.P23] and referred the injured [D2] to Kovai Medical Centre
