SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Mad) 24

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. VAIDYANATHAN, G. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Ravichandran - Appellant
Versus
State, Rep. by Inspector of Police, Ramanathapuram District - Respondent
Crl.A.(MD) No. 312 of 2018
Decided On : 12-01-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mahaboob Athiff
For the Respondent: A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2), 313 and 428 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 – 304(ii) - Sections 302 - Offence of Culpable homicide not amounting to murder and Murder – Appeal against conviction - When deceased, who is wife of complainant, son and daughters were on their way to buy grocery items, Appellant / accused, who is none other than brother of complainant, on account of previous enmity, attacked deceased, with an Aruval in order to do away with her life and pursuant to brutal attack, deceased succumbed to injuries - Held, It is a settled law that ocular evidence can be disbelieved only when medical evidence rules out all possibilities of ocular evidence being true. P.Ws.1 and 3 to 5 vividly indicate specific parts of body on which, deceased sustained injuries and court feel it appropriate to refer to postmortem report to arrive at a definite conclusion whether there were injuries on body. - Court view that conviction and sentence passed by Court below requires modification, as facts of present case clearly falls under Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC. The accused armed with M.O.1 had caused multiple injuries on the deceased. Though these injuries were not on vital part of body, it cumulatively has caused death due to shock and hemorrhage. Accused had caused these injuries with knowledge that these injuries are likely to cause death. Therefore, appellant is convicted for “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” and he is sentenced under Section 304 (II) of IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of seven years. At same time, we are not inclined to interfere with fine amount that was imposed by Trial Court - It is made clear that if appellant fails to surrender before concerned Court, respondent police shall secure appellant and produce him before Magistrate and thereafter, he shall be confined to prison - Criminal Appeal partly allowed.

JUDGMENT :

S. Vaidyanathan, G. Jayachandran, JJ.

Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and conviction dated 28.06.2018, by the learned Fast Track Mahalir Neethimandram/Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram in S.C.No.48 of 2014 and acquit the Appellant.

The appeal is filed by the sole accused, who was found guilty by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 302 IPC and he was convicted by the Trial Court for said offence as follows:

    Sl.No.

    Offence

    Conviction and Sentence

    1.

    Section 302 IPC

    To undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,10,000/-, in default to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment, with further direction to pay a sum of Rs.35,000/- each to the son and two daughters of the deceased from the fine amount and the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- be paid to the Government as fine.

    The period of remand already undergone by the accused was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the order of the Fast Track Mahalir Neethimandram/Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram, the Appellant/Sole Accused has preferred the present Criminal Appeal before this Court.

2. The case of the prosecution in nutshell as per FIR (Ex.P1) was that on 13.08.2013 at about 5:15pm, when the complainant, Murugeshwari / deceased, who is the wife of the complainant, son and daughters were on their way to buy grocery items, the Appellant / accused, who is none other than the brother of the complainant, on account of the previous enmity, attacked the deceased, with an Aruval in order to do away with her life and pursuant to the brutal attack, the deceased succumbed to injuries. It was alleged by the complainant / P.W.1, there was a frequent quarrel taken place between his wife and his brother / accused and the accused always used to abuse his wife in filthy language in a drunken mood.

3. It was further alleged by P.W.1 that though the deceased was admitted in the hospital through 108 Ambulance around 5.40pm, she was declared dead by the Doctor in the hospital at about 5.50pm. Thereafter, he went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint / Ex.P1 on the very same day at 20.30 hours, pursuant to which, a case was registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police / P.W.14 in Crime No.144 of 2013 for an offence under Section 302 IPC and the printed FIR was forwarded to the jurisdictional Magistrate and his Superior Officers for further action.

4. After a detailed and thorough investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Mudukulathur in P.R.C.No.7 of 2014 and was subsequently, made over to the Fast Track Mahalir Neethimandram / Principal Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. for trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offence against the accused, had examined 15 witnesses, marked 24 documents and exhibited 7 Material Objects and on the side of the accused, neither any witness was examined nor documents marked. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence and convicted him as stated supra.

5. The learned counsel, who is on record to appear for the appellant has reported no instruction and hence, this Court, on 09.11.2021, appointed Mr.Mahaboob Athiff, Advocate as a Legal Aid Counsel to represent the accused. Learned Legal Aid Counsel submitted that P.W.1 is not an eye witness to the occurrence, who, in his deposition stated that after hearing the noise, he came to the scene of occurrence. He further submitted that the minor witness, who are the children of the deceased have given contrary evidences and that there was no intention on the part of the accused to

        Click Here to Read the rest of this document
        1
        2
        3
        4
        5
        6
        7
        8
        9
        10
        11
        SupremeToday Portrait Ad
        supreme today icon
        logo-black

        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

        qr

        Scan Me!

        India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

        For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

        whatsapp-icon Back to top