IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.N. Prakash, N. Anand Venkatesh, JJ.
Anbarasi – Appellant
Versus
The State rep. by The Inspector of Police Mettupalayam Police Station – Respondent
Crl.A.No.522 of 2018
Decided On : 21-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 207, 428 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Offence of Murder - Simple Imprisonment - Instantaneous Death - Appeal has been filed against judgment and order of Additional District Sessions Judge Coimbatore convicting appellant for an offence - Case of prosecution appellant started living with deceased Vimal Kumar appellant - Held, Court are satisfied present case makes out an offence of culpable homicide not attempting to murder - Court inclined to bring this case - Court are inclined to modify Rigorous Imprisonment judgment order passed by Court below is modified to that extent - Order Accordingly.
JUDGMENT :
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in S.C.No.8 of 2017, dated 23.02.2018, convicting the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC., and sentencing her to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- and in default to undergo 3 months Simple Imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant started living with the deceased Vimal Kumar along with their 4 year old son. The mother of the appellant [CW.1] was also living along with them. The deceased Vimal Kumar used to subject the appellant to cruelty under influence of alcohol and there were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the appellant. On 08.08.2016 at about 5.00 a.m., the appellant and the deceased Vimal Kumar quarreled with each other and the appellant is said to have taken a grinding stone [MO.1] and threw it on the head of the deceased Vimal Kumar, resulting in his instantaneous death.
3. The incident is said to have been witnessed by PW.1, who is the mother of the deceased and she immediately called her elder son PW.2 from her mobile phone. PW.1, PW.2 and David [PW.3] came to the scene of crime and thereafter PW.1 and PW.2 went to the Mettupalayam Police Station and lodged a complaint [Ex.P.1]. Based on the same, an FIR [Ex.P.18] was registered by PW.12 on 08.08.2016 at about 7.30 a.m.
4. The Investigation Officer [PW.13] came to the scene of crime and prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P.4] in the presence of PW.1 at about 9.15 a.m. He recovered MO.4 to MO.8 under Seizure Magazar [Ex.P.5]. He also arranged for a photographer [PW-7], who took photographs at the scene of occurrence. The inquest was conducted between 10.00 am., to 01.00 pm., and Inquest Report [Ex.P.19] was prepared. The dead body was sent to the Coimbatore Medical College Hospital through the Head Constable [PW.5] with requisition [Ex.P.11] for conducting autopsy.
5. The appellant was arrested on the same day at about 4.45 p.m., and based on the admissible portion of the confession, the grinding stone [MO.1] and the blood stained nighty [MO.3] were recovered in the presence of PW.6.
6. The Investigation Officer [PW.13] recorded the statement of all the witnesses and after collecting the Post Mortem Certificate, Chemical Analysis Report and Serology Report, completed the investigation and filed the Final Report on 05.11.2016, before the Judicial Magistrate Mettupalayam.
7. The copies were served on the appellant under Section 207 of Cr.PC., and the case was committed to the Sessions Court and was made over to the Court below. The Court below framed charges for offence under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution examined PW.1 to PW.13 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.21 and identified and marked MO.1 to MO.10. The incriminating circumstances that emanated during the course of trial was put to the appellant while she was questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of Cr.P.C., and she denied the same as false and she also stated that she was not present in the scene of crime and she was living with her mother elsewhere.
8. The Court below on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and hence, convicted and sentenced the appellant for an offence under Section 302 IPC.
9. Heard Mr.M.Rajavelu learned counsel for appellant and Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent.
10. The mother of the deceased was examined as PW.1 and she is the eyewitness in this case. She has stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and she tried to pacify them and all of a sudden, the appellant took the grinding stone from the grinder and threw it on Vimal Kumar’s head as a result of which his head was smashed. After the incident, the appellant is said to have ran away from th
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Act of provocation and loss of self-control, must be actual and reasonable.
The court ruled that the appellant's actions were provoked by the victim's threats, justifying a conviction under Section 304 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 1 of Section 300 of the IPC, regarding grave and sudden provocation, in determining the appellant's guilt for murder.
The appellant was entitled to the benefit of Exception 1 to Section 300 of IPC, converting his conviction under Section 302 of IPC to that of Part-I of Section 304 of IPC, considering the sustained p....
The court ruled that actions taken under grave and sudden provocation can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing it from murder under Section 302 IPC.
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.