Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(Mad) 1698
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
Ramachandran – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Cuddalore – Respondent
Crl. A. No. 501 of 2020
Decided On : 18-04-2023
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:K. Gandhi Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
For the Appellant:K. Gandhi Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent:R. Kishore Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 (i) of I.P.C and the reliance on witness testimony and medical evidence to establish guilt.
Headnote:
Criminal Appeal - Conviction and Sentence - Sections 294(b), 324, 302, 506(i) of I.P.C - The court held that the death of Sivabalan is due to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the accused deserves to be convicted for offence under Section 304 (i) of I.P.C. The accused was also convicted for causing hurt using a weapon to attack Senthil Murugan and Shanmugasundaram and for intimidating others.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, brother of Senthamizh Devi, was convicted for causing the death of Sivabalan, injuring Senthil Murugan and Shanmugasundaram, and intimidating others. The incident occurred when the appellant attacked the victims with a knife following a quarrel between Senthamizh Devi and her husband Senthil Murugan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and convicted him under Section 304 (i) of I.P.C. The court also convicted the appellant for causing hurt using a weapon to attack Senthil Murugan and Shanmugasundaram and for intimidating others.
Issues: The issues revolved around the identification of the weapon used, the credibility of witnesses, and the motive behind the attack.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of the injured witnesses, the nature of injuries sustained, and the sequence of events to establish the guilt of the appellant.
Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was partly allowed with modification in the sentence, reducing the period of imprisonment from 10 years to 5 years for the offence under Section 304(i) of I.P.C.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., pleased to call for the records and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No.185 of 2019, dated 28.09.2020 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore, Virudhachalam.)
1. This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the judgment passed by the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore at Virudhachalam in S.C.No.185 of 2019 dated 28.09.2020.
2. The appellant herein is the brother of one Senthamizh Devi. She was married with one Senthil Murugan. Their matrimonial life of Senthamizh Devi and Senthil Murugan was not cordial. Frequently, Senthamizh Devi used to go to her parents house at old Neyveli, whenever there was quarrel between them. Likewise, a month before the occurrence, she quarrelled with her husband Senthil Murugan and went to their parents house. On 12.09.2017, Senthil Murugan with intention to pacify his wife and to bring her back to the matrimonial fold went to old Neyveli. He met his wife Senthamizh Devi at her parents house at about 8.00 p.m but he could not succeed to bring her back since there was exchange of abuse between him and the family members of his wife. Therefore, at about 10.30 p.m, Senthil Murugan returned back to his village at Melpappanapattu and told his family members that his wife had refused to come with him, also her relatives have abused him and he inturn abused them and came back. While Senthil Murugan along with Shanmugasundaram, Sivabalan and others were talking outside his house, the accused, who is the brother of Senthamizh Devi came in his Bajaj CT 100 two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN-91-W-3894, took a knife kept in the bike pouch and came towards Senthil Murugan charging and abusing him with filthy language. The accused/Ramachandran stabbed Senthil Murugan on his left side scalp and left forearm. Sivabalan who is the friend of Senthil Murugan tried to prevent the attack and save Senthil Murugan. The accused/Ramachandran turned Sivabalan and stabbed him on his left rib. Shanmugasundaram, the brother of Sivabalan tried to stop Ramachandran attacking others. However, Shanmugasundaram was attacked and he sustained injury at the hands of Ramachandran. On hearing the hue and cry, neighbours came rushing. Accused Ramachandran wielded his knife towards them and threatened them to kill if they come near him. Thereafter, the accused ran away.
3. The villagers arranged for ambulance and in the ambulance, injured persons were taken to Government Hospital, Kurinjipadi. The Doctor, who examined Sivabalan declared brought dead. Senthil Murugan and Shanmugasundaram went to the Government Hospital Cuddalore and took treatment. On receipt of the memo from the hospital, the police went to the hospital, recorded the statement of Shanmugasundaram, who was conscious and able to talk. Based on his statement, F.I.R in crime No.222 of 2017 was registered on 13.09.2017 at about 5.30 hrs.
4. On completion of investigation, final report filed against Ramachandran for causing death of Sivabalan, abusing in filthy language, causing simple hurt to Senthil Murugan and Shanmugasundaram and for intimidating others, who tried to prevent the accused from causing injury using the weapon.
5. Based on the final report and the materials relied by the prosecution, the Judicial Magistrate has committed the matter to the Sessions Court since the offence was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions. On committal, the First Additional Sessions Court, Cuddalore, camped at Virudhachalam, framed charges under Sections 294(b), 324 (2 counts), 302 and 506(i) of I.P.C.
6. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses (P.W.1 to P.W.16) and marked 17 exhibits (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17) and 15 material objects. No evidence adduced on behalf of the accused.
7. The trial Court, on considering the evidence held that, the death of Sivabalan is due to culpable homicide not amounting to murd
