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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 397

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.
Saravanakumar – Petitioner
Versus
State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Tiruchirappalli District. – Respondent
Crl.A. (MD) No. 195 of 2020
Decided On : 08-03-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Karunanidhi, M. Jagadeesh Pandian, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S. Ravi, Additional Public Prosecutor.

IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the accused's intention to cause death based on the nature of the injuries inflicted and the circumstances of the attack.

Headnote:

Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 I.P.C - Sections 294(b) and 302 I.P.C - Summary of Acts and Sections: Section 302 I.P.C, Section 294(b) I.P.C - The court discussed the evidence presented by the prosecution, the postmortem report, and the intention of the accused in causing the death. The court referred to legal provisions such as Section 300 I.P.C and relevant case laws to determine the intention of the accused and the nature of the injuries inflicted.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the homicidal death of his maternal aunt, who refused to give him money and share in the family property. The prosecution presented evidence of the appellant's demand for money, the quarrel with the deceased, and the subsequent attack using a weapon. The postmortem report indicated injuries to the head and neck, leading to the death of the deceased.

Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the evidence of eyewitnesses, the postmortem report, and the intention of the accused. The court found that the appellant's unprovoked attack on the unarmed lady, due to her refusal to part with money and property, fell within the scope of Clause (2) of Section 300 I.P.C, indicating an intention to cause death.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the intention of the accused in causing the death, the nature of the injuries, and the proximity between the injury and the death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the evidence of eyewitnesses, the postmortem report, and legal provisions such as Section 300 I.P.C and relevant case laws to determine the intention of the accused and the nature of the injuries inflicted. The court emphasized the unprovoked nature of the attack and the severity of the injuries as indicative of the accused's intention to cause death.

Final Decision: The Criminal Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant was ordered to surrender before the trial Court to undergo the remaining period of sentence.

JUDGMENT :

G. Jayachandran, C. Kumarappan, JJ.

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records in S.C.No.23 of 2018, dated 28.02.2020, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same.)

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant / sole accused against the conviction and sentence imposed on him vide judgment, dated 28.02.2018, in S.C.No.23 of 2018, on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 I.P.C and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 I.P.C. in connection with the homicidal death of one Radha, who is none other than the maternal aunt of the appellant.

3. The case of the prosecution as unfurled during the investigation is that, the family of the deceased had substantial immovable property and the same was maintained by the deceased. The deceased and the appellant's mother married with one Sivasamy, who was the father of the appellant. The appellant / accused, who is the sister's son of the deceased, used to demand his share from the deceased, for which, the deceased was not willing. In this connection, on 20.06.2017 at about 08.30 a.m. in the morning, the accused went to the house of the deceased and demanded money. When the deceased refused, there was a wordy quarrel between them. The accused left the house of the deceased after throwing a life threat. Again, on the same day evening, the accused came back to the house of the deceased, abused her in filthy language and demanded money. When she refused, he took bill hook concealed behind his back and attacked the deceased on her head, neck and hand. The injured / deceased was taken to Neuro One Hospital, Tiruchirappalli. She died in the hospital on 01.07.2017 at about 20.30 hours. Hence, the charge for the offences under Sections 294(b) and 302 I.P.C. was framed against the accused and tried.

4. To prove the charges, the prosecution has examined 18 witnesses and marked 23 exhibits. On the side of the defence, the agreement between the family members to apportion the family property was marked as Ex.D1. That apart, three material objects were marked and one among them is M.O.3, the weapon alleged to have been used by the accused to assault the deceased.

5. P.W.1 and P.W.4 are the sisters of the accused. P.W.2 and P.W.3 are grandchildren of the deceased. P.W.1 to P.W.3, who were the family members, were present in the house of the deceased at the time of occurrence and they have deposed how the incident took place and their evidence is clearly incriminating the appellant/accused. Since they are all related to both the deceased and the accused, the trial Court has believed their evidence.

6. The postmortem doctor (P.W.13) had opined in his report (Ex.P11) that the deceased would appear to have died of combined effects of head and cervical spine injuries. The following antemortem injuries were found on her body to give the above opinion:-

    ''1) 6cm Oblique sutured wound with 7 intact sutures on occipital region of the scalp; The left end of the wound was directed upwards towards left ear lobe, slightly lower on the right side; 12 cm above posterior hairline of the neck; The right end of the wound was 10 cm from right mastoid process; The left end of the wound was 10 cm from left mastoid process.

On removal of the sutures, the margins of the wound were well adherent with each other; On further dissection of the wound, 7 cm x 1 cm x bone deep cut injury on the centre of the occipital region of the scalp; On reflection of the Scalp, Scalp and Cranial Vault: Intact; On removal of the calvarium, 8 x 6 cm thin layer of dark red subdural haemorrhage on parieto-occipital lobe of left cerebral hemisphere with 4 x 2 cm thin layer of dark

          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