Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
Sivapandi – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
1. The accused in S.C.No.63 of 2016 aggrieved by the judgment dated21.02.2020 by which judgment, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Theni, had convicted him for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and had sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year simple imprisonment, has filed the present Criminal Appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution was that on 11.09.2009 at around 02.30 pm, when the appellant/accused and his friends were playing cards near Maravapatti Muthalamman Temple, the deceased Ranjith Kumar came there and sat down and started to advise one of the other players, Thangaraju, by saying do not put that card, do not put this card focussing against the accused. This led to a wordy quarrel between the accused and Ranjith Kumar, in the course of which, the deceased had abused the accused by using foul language and had taken a wooden log and assaulted the accused. At that time, those who were present had separated them. The deceased then told the accused to come to the banyan tree in the village crematorium wherein, they can engage
The court established that a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC requires intent to kill, which was absent in this case, justifying a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC.
The court determined that killing during a sudden quarrel, spurred by provocation, constitutes culpable homicide rather than murder, warranting a conviction under lesser charges.
The offence under Section 304 Part II IPC applies when culpable homicide occurs without premeditation during a sudden fight between the aggressor and the defendant.
Eyewitness testimony, particularly from injured witnesses, is crucial in establishing guilt, even with minor inconsistencies in their accounts.
(1) Minor discrepancies should not be given undue importance that don’t go to root of matter. Such contradictions are not material contradictions and evidence of such witnesses cannot be brushed asid....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
