BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. Vaidyanathan, G. Jayachandran, JJ.
Muruganantham – Appellant
Versus
State, represented by The Inspector of Police, Thanjavur – Respondent
Crl.A.(MD) No. 40 of 2019
Decided On : 29-11-2021
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302,294(b),323 and 506(i) - Culpable homicide – Murder - Case of prosecution is that near Water Pump, there was a quarrel between accused and his father - At that time, deceased a resident of same street, interfered and tried to pacify father and son, who were quarrelling - Accused herein infuriated by the intervention of deceased, pushed him down uttering filthy and abusive words - Due to forcible push, deceased fell down and sustained head injury - Thereafter, he was taken to Hospital immediately - He succumbed to head injury on next day - Soon after occurrence, one, wife of injured Swaminathan, has gone to Police Station and reported about incident - Complaint was registered by Sub Inspector of Police, Police Station, in Crime, for offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C - However, on receiving intimation of death of injured said one respondent Police altered charges for offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) and 302 I.P.C. and altered F.I.R. was also forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate - On completion of investigation, prosecution filed final report and on serving documents relied on by prosecution, case was committed to Sessions Court as offence committed by accused being triable by Court of Sessions – Held, It is also to be noted that P.W.1, in her testimony, states that accused after pushing her husband down, uttered that since P.W.1 (wife) is present, he spare the deceased without killing - Therefore, mens rea of accused, even by his own utterance, indicates that he had no intention at that time to cause death of said one and injury was caused due to the sudden push - Since death was caused due to sudden quarrel in a fit of anger without any premeditation, this Court holds that act of accused would fall under Explanation “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” and benefits of Exception (IV) to Section 300 I.P.C. deserve to be extended to him – Court are inclined to modify conviction and sentence imposed on appellant from one under Section 302 I.P.C. to one under Section 304(II) I.P.C. and sentence appellant to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment - Criminal appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records in S.C.No.207 of 2014, on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge (FTC), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and set aside the Judgment dated 11.12.2018 and acquit the appellant of the charges levelled as against him.)
1. This criminal appeal is filed by the sole accused, who was found guilty by the Trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 and 294(b) I.P.C.
2. The Trial Court, having found that the charges framed against the accused are proved, has imposed life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.08.2013, at about 07.00 p.m., at Pudupadaiyur Vellala Street, near Water Pump, there was a quarrel between the accused and his father Balasubramanian. At that time, the deceased Swaminathan, a resident of the same street, interfered and tried to pacify the father and son, who were quarrelling. The accused herein infuriated by the intervention of the deceased, pushed him down uttering filthy and abusive words. Due to the forcible push, the deceased Swaminathan fell down and sustained head injury. Thereafter, he was taken to the Hospital immediately. However, he succumbed to the head injury on the next day at 10.45 a.m. Soon after the occurrence, one Krishnaveni, wife of the injured Swaminathan, has gone to the Police Station and reported about the incident. The complaint was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Patteswaram Police Station, in Crime No.172 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. However, on receiving the intimation of death of the injured Swaminathan, the respondent Police altered the charges for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) and 302 I.P.C. and the altered F.I.R. was also forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam. On completion of the investigation, the prosecution filed the final report and on serving the documents relied on by the prosecution, the case was committed to the Sessions Court as the offence committed by the accused being triable by the Court of Sessions.
4. The following two charges were framed against the accused:
On 26.08.2013, at about 07.00 p.m. near Balasubramanian's thatched house-water pump at Pudupadaiyur Vellala Street, the accused and his father Balasubramanian were quarrelling as usual. At that time, Swaminathan (deceased), a resident of the same street, came out from his house and tried to pacify the father and son. At that time, the accused using filthy language questioned the deceased who he is to interfere in the fight between him and his father and thereby, committed the offence triable under Section 294(b) I.P.C.
Charge-2:
On the same day, in continuation of the same incident, the accused slapped the deceased on his cheek and pushed him down forcibly and threatened that if he interferes in his family affairs henceforth, he will kill him. Due to the push, the deceased fell down on the floor, sustained injuries on the occipital region and died subsequently and thereby, committed the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
5. Since the accused denied the charges, he was subjected to trial.
6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, marked 18 documents and 03 material objection. On the side of the accused, no evidence was let in and no document was marked.
7. P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant, is the wife of the deceased Swaminathan. P.W.1, in her evidence, has spoken about the incident occurred on 26.08.2013 at about 07.00 p.m. According to P.W.1, on the fateful day, while she and her husband were watching television in their house, they heard alarm that somebody is killing. Therefore, she and her husband Swaminathan came out of the house and saw the ac
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.