Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Thangaraj - Appellant
Versus
State rep. by Inspector of Police Sirumugai Police Station Coimbatore District - Respondent
Crl.A. No. 306 of 2016
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 304(i) IPC - [Criminal Appeal] - [Conviction under Section 304(i) IPC] - [Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 374(2)] - [Summary: The court discussed the evidence presented by witnesses, the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased, and the legal provisions related to culpable homicide and grievous hurt. The court concluded that the appellant's act did not constitute culpable homicide and instead fell under Section 323 IPC, modifying the conviction and sentence accordingly.]
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 304(i) IPC for causing the death of the deceased by kicking him, resulting in injuries that led to the deceased's death. The prosecution's case was based on the testimony of witnesses and medical reports.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the appellant's son (PW.3) was credible and explained the manner in which the incident took place. The court also noted contradictions in the testimony of other witnesses and rejected their evidence. The court concluded that the appellant's act did not amount to culpable homicide but fell under Section 323 IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant's act constituted culpable homicide or fell under a different offence under the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal provisions related to culpable homicide, grievous hurt, and hurt under the Indian Penal Code to determine the nature of the appellant's act and its legal implications. The court concluded that the act fell under Section 323 IPC.
Final Decision: The court modified the appellant's conviction and sentenced him for the offence under Section 322 punishable under Section 323 IPC, confining the imprisonment to the period already undergone by the appellant and imposing a fine, which had already been deposited by the appellant.
Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The appellant was initially convicted under Section 304(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for causing the death of the deceased by kicking him, which resulted in injuries leading to death (!) (!) .
The evidence, particularly from the appellant's son (PW.3), was found credible and demonstrated that the appellant's act was not of culpable homicide but rather fell under Section 323 IPC, which pertains to voluntary causing hurt (!) (!) .
The court examined whether the act constituted culpable homicide, murder, or an offence under other sections such as 304-A IPC or causing grievous hurt, but concluded that the appellant’s act did not meet the criteria for culpable homicide or murder due to the absence of intent or knowledge to cause death (!) (!) .
The injuries caused by the appellant, and the subsequent death after seven days, were determined to be the result of bodily pain inflicted voluntarily, which falls under Section 323 IPC. The deceased's advanced age (approximately 85-88 years) was also considered relevant (!) (!) .
The court, therefore, modified the conviction and sentenced the appellant under Section 322 punishable under Section 323 IPC. The imprisonment period already undergone was to be considered sufficient, and the appellant was directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, which had already been deposited (!) .
The appeal was partly allowed, resulting in the modification of the conviction and sentence, emphasizing that the appellant's act was voluntary hurt rather than culpable homicide or murder (!) .
These points encapsulate the court's reasoning, the evidence considered, and the final legal determination.
JUDGMENT
(Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to set aside the judgment and order of conviction passed in S.C.No.128 of 2015 by order dated 22.03.2016 on the file of the learned III Additional District & Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.)
This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.128 of 2015, dated 22.03.2016, convicting the appellant for offence u/s. 304(i) IPC and sentencing him to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and his wife Poongodi (PW.2) were staying along with their children and were working in a farmland owned by one Rasappan. The deceased Karuppusamy @ Periyakaruppan is the father-in-law of the appellant and he also used to stay along with the appellant and his family. There was some misunderstanding between them and hence, the appellant left the farmland and he started living with his parents.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that on 31.12.2014 at about 8.30 pm, when PW.2 and the deceased were in the shed at the farmland, the appellant came and demanded that his daughter Kalaiyarasi must be sent along with him. PW.2 refused to send the daughter along with the appellant. The appellant started dragging Kalaiarasi by her hands and this was prevented by PW.2. Enraged by the same, the appellant attempted to assault PW.2. On seeing this, the deceased interfered and the appellant is said to have kicked him in his abdomen and the deceased fell down on a grinding stone resulting in an injury. The appellant ran away from the scene of occurrence.
4. The deceased was taken to Annur Government Hospital and first aid treatment was given by the doctor examined as PW.6. The accident register was marked through PW.6 as Ex.P.3. On going through the accident register, it is stated as if, the deceased had fallen down on his own and had sustained injuries and hence, it was not treated as an injury caused due to any commission of offence.
5. PW.1, who was living in the adjacent land, gave a complaint (Ex.P.1) before the Sub Inspector of Police, Sirumugai Police Station on 02.01.2015 at about 21.45 hours. Based on the complaint, PW.7 registered an FIR (Ex.P.4) in Crime No.2 of 2015 for offences u/s. 294(b), 323 and 506(i) IPC. PW.7, thereafter went to the scene of occurrence on 03.01.2015 at about 6.00 am, and prepared the observation mahazar marked as Ex.P.2 and rough sketch marked as Ex.P.5 in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, he also recorded the statements of witnesses u/s.161(3) Cr.PC. At about 8.15 am, the appellant was arrested and he was produced before the concerned Court and he was remanded to judicial custody.
6. The deceased died on 07.01.2015 and hence, an alteration report was prepared and was submitted before the concerned Court and the same was marked as Ex.P.8. The offence was altered to Section 302 IPC.
7. The investigation was taken over by PW.9 and he took steps to conduct the inquest on the body of the deceased from 8.00 am., to 11.00 am. The inquest report was marked as Ex.P.9. PW.9 thereafter sent the body of the deceased for post-mortem and the post-mortem was conducted by PW.8. The post-mortem report which was marked as Ex.P.6 through PW.8 records of the following injuries:
The following ante mortem injuries noted over the body:
- Superficial surgical incisor noted over right side chest, right shoulder and inner aspect of both arm.
- Sutured wound 3 cm in length noted over inner aspect of right ankle joint.
Abrasion 3x2 cm noted over lateral aspect of back of left mid abdomen
On dissection of Thorax and Abdomen; Contusion in variegated colour 3x2 cm noted over lower lobe of right lung in its anterior aspect. Pus material noted posterior aspect of right lung. Left lung
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appellant's act did not constitute culpable homicide but fell under Section 323 IPC, leading to the modification of the conviction and sen....
A conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC was adjusted to culpable homicide under Section 304 due to ambiguities in witness accounts and lack of intent, establishing a precedent for interpreting ....
The court considered the absence of premeditation or previous motive, the nature of the weapon used, and the amount of force employed to determine the accused's guilt.
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention or knowledge regarding the fatal injury, with the absence of premeditation and the nature of the confrontation i....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, including the presence of a clear motive and cre....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, based on the absence of premeditation, undue advantage, or cruel behavior by the accused.
The court upheld the conviction based solely on one credible witness's testimony, affirming that quality of evidence is more critical than quantity in criminal cases.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
