BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.JAYACHANDRAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ.
Balamurugan - Appellant
Versus
The State - Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.242 of 2022
Decided on : 24-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 and Section 304(1) - Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women from Harassment Act - Section 4 - Conviction for murder and harassment - The accused attacked the deceased during a quarrel, resulting in death after 12 days of treatment - The trial court found the prosecution proved charges beyond reasonable doubt, sentencing the accused to life imprisonment and fines - The appeal challenged the conviction based on contradictions in witness testimonies and the accused's mental health - The court found mitigating circumstances, modifying the sentence to six years for murder and one year for harassment. (Paras 3, 5, 11, 13)
(B) Mental Health - The court acknowledged the accused's mental disorder, considering it a mitigating factor in sentencing. (Paras 11, 12)
(C) Witness Credibility - The court emphasized the reliability of eyewitness accounts in confirming the accused's actions. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
The accused attacked the deceased, who intervened during a quarrel between the accused and the complainant, resulting in the deceased's death after 12 days.
Findings of Court:
The court confirmed the trial court's findings but modified the sentence based on the accused's mental health.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of witness testimonies and the accused's mental state at the time of the incident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the accused's actions were not premeditated murder but fell under the first exception of Section 300 IPC, warranting a lesser charge.
Result: The Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction preferred by the sole accused being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction rendered in S.C.No.116 of 2019, dated 23.09.2021, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahalir Court(Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi.
2. The brief facts is that:
Kaleeswari, grand-daughter of the deceased by name, Arumuga Perumal gave a complaint to the Kayathar Police Station on 23.1.2019 at 20.00 hours informing that her grand-father by name Arumuga Perumal residing at North Illanthaikulam Village was attacked by the accused who is residing in the opposite house when there was a wordy quarrel beween her and the accused in which her grand-father intervened. The incident, according to the complainant was a consequence of the earlier wordy quarrel between P.W.1 and the accused happened on the same day. The incident was witnessed by Chellammal P.W.2, Eswari P.W.3, P.W.4 Veeralakshmi and P.W.5 Marimuthu. The Investigation Officer proceeded to the spot, prepared the Observation Mahazar and Athatchi in the presence of independent witnesses Shamugaraj, examined as P.W.6 and one Gurusamy. The inquest was conducted in the place of crime and thereafter the body was taken to Tamil Nadu Medical College Hospital for post-mortem. The blood-stained materials were sent for chemical analysis and chemical examination report as well as the serological report were obtained. The accused was arrested on the same day. On completion of investigation, final report was filed and the the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, being satisfied that the offence are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
3. On perusing the records, the Sessions Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women from Harassment Act and Section 302 of IPC and Section 506(ii) of IPC. The substance of the charge is that the accused residing opposite to the house of P.W. 1 on 23.1.2019 at about 4.15 p.m got provoked by P.W.1 reprimanding her children playing in the street as if P.W.1 is scolding the mother of the accused by in and do. Therefore there was a wordly quarrel between them at 4.30 p.m. When P.W.1 went to purchase groceries, the accused followed her with aruval .P.W.1 was allerted by P.W.2 and P.W.3 and before she could realize, her grand father who came their intervened and prevent the assault. At that time, the accused after abusing P.W.1 with all abusive words and attacked Arumugaperumal with Aruval. The said Arumugaperumal to avoid the attack directed on his head prevented it with his left fore-arm and the attack used to fall on his fore arm.Then again, the accused attacked Arumuga Perumal wih Aruval on his head causing injury. The said Arumugaperumal was taken to the hospital immediately. Further he succumbed to the injury after 12 days of treatment. ie., on 3.2.209 at about 8.40 p.m.
4. Since the accused had threatened the persons, who were witnessing the occurrence, if they come near him, they will also face the same consequnce and intimidate them of dire consequnces. The trial Court has felt that he has also committed the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC, besides, the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women From Harassment Act for abusing P.W.1 and Section 302 for causing death of Arumugaperumal with an intention to cause death.
5. To prove the charges, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and marked 19 exhibits and also 6 material objects. Since the occular evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W.6 were so cogent and reliable about the occurrence, the trial Court held that the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women from Harassment Act.
The court modified the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, considering the accused's mental health and lack of intent to kill.
The court determined that the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide not amounting to murder due to the absence of intent to kill, influenced by intoxication and sudden provocation.
Sustained provocation and heat of passion can reduce murder to culpable homicide, allowing for a lesser sentence under Section 304(II) IPC.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that for a conviction under Section 302, IPC, there must be an intention to cause death or such injury likely to cause death. In the absence of suc....
The court upheld the conviction for abetment of suicide, ruling persistent harassment by the accused instigated the victim's self-immolation, establishing mens rea required for conviction under Secti....
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 culpable homicide can be distinguished from murder based on the presence of intention and premeditation, particularly in cases of sudden provocation.
A dying declaration can only serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is credible and free from external influence; inconsistencies can undermine its reliability.
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.