BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN, MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA, JJ
Marudhu Pandi – Appellant
Versus
State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
R.POORNIMA, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/Sole Accused in the judgment dated 30.03.2021 passed by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Ramanathapuram, in S.C.No.29 of 2016 by convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs.3,000/- in default, to undergo two years simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) The complainant has two sons and a daughter. His wife's name is Lakshmi, aged about 55 years. His eldest son Kannusamy and daughter Sivagami got married. His daughter Sivagami separated from her husband and resides with the complainant along with his granddaughter Shanthini.
(b) Opposite to his house one Vijayaraman constructed a house and was residing there. The family of Vijayaraman and the family of the brother of his wife had enmity for a long time. Both Vijayaraman and his son Marudhu Pandi, viz., the accused had previous enmity with the complainant and his family. They had often engaged in verbal quarrels with them.
(c) On 27.04.2014, he
The court confirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, establishing that the evidence of murder was beyond reasonable doubt and rejecting claims of sudden provocation.
The court reaffirmed that intention and the nature of injuries are critical in distinguishing between murder and culpable homicide under IPC.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC, asserting no grave and sudden provocation was present and emphasizing the reliability of the child witness alongside corroborative medical evide....
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on credible eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence, rejecting claims of accidental death.
The burden of proof, quality of evidence, and the application of exception 4 to section 300 of IPC in determining the nature of the offence.
The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, particularly in domestic disputes.
The court modified the conviction from murder under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(ii) IPC, emphasizing the absence of premeditation and the presence o....
Sustained provocation and heat of passion can reduce murder to culpable homicide, allowing for a lesser sentence under Section 304(II) IPC.
The court ruled that solitary eyewitness testimony can suffice for conviction in murder cases, especially when corroborated by medical evidence. The culpable act did not fall under provocation except....
Conviction modified from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and insufficient evidence linking the accused to the weapon used in the crim....
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.