BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, R.POORNIMA, JJ.
Balasubramanian - Appellant
Versus
The State, Rep. by its The Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)Nos.368 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.(MD)No.8675 of 2025
Decided On : 10-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. details of the incident leading to the conviction. (Para 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding guilt and evidence issues. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 3. debate on provocation and intent in the case. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 4. evidence regarding the relationship dynamics. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. understanding sustained provocation in the legal context. (Para 22 , 23) |
| 6. key findings on intention and the legal classification of the act. (Para 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. modification of verdict based on legal reasoning. (Para 27 , 28) |
| 8. conclusion of the judgment with the final order. (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
R.POORNIMA, J.
This Criminal Appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/sole accused in the judgment dated 23.02.2021 made in S.C.No.92 of 2016 by the Sessions Judge, Fast Track Mahila Court, Virudhunagar District at Srivilliputtur, in which judgment, Accused had been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows :
(a) The complainant's sister Mareeswari (deceased), was married to Balasubramanian (accused) 17 years back. They were blessed with two children namely, Shanthi @ Malarselvi (P.W.3) and Suyambukumar @ Siva (P.W.4). On 03.10.2015 at about 2.30 p.m., the complainant and another witness, Moorthy, went to the house of the deceased. At that time, the accused was taking his lunch in the house, and his son and daughter (P.W.3 and P.W.4) were also present. The deceased returned home from the mill for lunch and, on seeing the accused eating food, started shouting at him, questioning how he could eat without going for any employment. In a fit of anger, she pulled the food plate and threw it away. Immediately, the accused shouted at her stating that she had insulted him in the presence of the children and others. He also accused her of refusing to give him money for consuming alcohol, threatened her with dire consequences, and left the house.
(b) Apprehending danger to the children, the sister of the deceased took them to the mill. Thereafter, the complainant and Moorthy returned to their house. Fearing that the accused might create trouble at the mill, they proceeded towards the mill.
(c) At about 8.00 p.m., they saw the deceased walking along Kattaiyapuram 1st Street with her children. While following them, the accused suddenly came from the opposite direction, abused the deceased stating that she had insulted him and refused to give money for alcohol, took out a knife concealed at his hip, and stabbed her indiscriminately on the left chest, left back, thigh, and other parts of the body.
(d) On hearing the hue and cry raised by the complainant and his son, the accused fled from the scene. The injured was taken in a 108 ambulance to the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar, and later referred to the Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. However, she was found unresponsive and was again taken to the Government Hospital, Virudhunagar, where the doctor declared her dead. Hence, the complaint.
(e) The complaint was received by P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police, Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, and a case in Crime No.408 of 2015 was registered under Section 302 IPC . The FIR (Ex.P8) was forwarded to the Judicial Magistrate.
(f) On 04.10.2015 at about 00.10 hours, P.W.22, Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar and rough sketch (Ex.P14) and recovered bloodstained soil and sample soil under mahazar (Ex.P4). He examined P.W.1 to P.W.6 and other witnesses and recorded their statements.
(g) At about 6.30 a.m. on the same day, the accused was arrested near Virudhunagar Bus Stand. Based on his confession (Ex.P11), the knife (M.O.1), bloodstained shirt (M.O.5), and pant (M.O.6) were recovered under mahazar (Ex.P7). An inquest was conducted, and the body was sent for
Sustained provocation and heat of passion can reduce murder to culpable homicide, allowing for a lesser sentence under Section 304(II) IPC.
The court established that a homicide can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed under grave and sudden provocation, emphasizing the importance of context and the acc....
Extreme provocation can reduce murder charges under Section 302 IPC to culpable homicide under Section 304 IPC when intent to kill is absent.
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.
The court determined that the absence of premeditation and intent to kill qualified the act as culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.
The court affirmed that evidence must establish intention to commit murder, ruling that provocation claimed by the accused did not mitigate the crime, reaffirming conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The court ruled that actions taken under grave and sudden provocation can lead to a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, distinguishing it from murder under Section 302 IPC.
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.