Crl.A.No.732 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

[Reserved on : 09.06.2023]

[Pronounced on : 04.09.2023]

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

Crl.A.No.732 of 2017

Kothandan @ Kothandapani

... Appellant/accused

.. Vs ..

State rep by

Inspector of Police,

Palur Police Station,

Kancheepuram District.

(Crime No.27 of 2013)

... Respondent/complainant

PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to set

aside the conviction and sentence passed by the S.C.No.169 of 2013 on

the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District at

Chengalpattu on 07.11.2017 and acquit the appellant herein from the

charges.

For Appellant

:

Mr.S.Sasikumar

For Respondent

:

Mr.L.Baskaran

Government Advocate (Crl.Side)

- - - - -

Pg.No.1 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.732 of 2017

JUDGMENT

The convicted sole accused is an appellant herein. The learned

Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District has convicted the

appellant herein in S.C.No.169 of 2013 for offence under Section 304(2)

of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and

also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple

imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.02.2013 at

about 06.00 pm, one Suganraj while chatting with his friend Ilavarasu at

Konganancheri Bus Stop, at that time the accused drew the TATA Ace

Vehicle in rashly very close to Suganraj. When it was questioned he

scolded him with filthy language. Hence, there was a previous enmity.

Due to that enmity on 24.02.2013 at about 14.00 hours near

Konkancherri Peralamman Temple, the Accused scolded Suganraj with

filthy language and assaulted him with Velikathan wooden log on his

head and due to the grievous injuries sustained by him, he died on

Pg.No.2 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.732 of 2017

24.04.2013 at 21.30 hours. Hence, the Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu

Taluk Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused Under

Section 294(b), 302 IPC.

3 (a). The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as PW.1 to

PW.14 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Material Objects 1 to 10 have

been marked. No witness was examined and no document has been

marked on the side of the defence.

3 (b). During the trial, PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 have turned

hostile. PW5 is the grand mother of the deceased. PW.6 turned hostile.

PW7 is a hearsay witness. PW.8 is attestor of the seizure mahazar. PW.9

is another attestor of the seizure mahazar of the properties of the

deceased. PW.10, PW.11 and PW.14 are the police witnesses, while

others are medical witnesses.

4. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidences, the

learned Sessions Judge, though the charge against the accused was

framed under Section 302 IPC, based upon the reasons stated therein, has

scaled down the charges to 304(ii) IPC and convicted and sentenced as

stated supra and hence, the appeal.

5. The trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 IPC and

Pg.No.3 of 12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.No.732 of 2017

based on the evidence, has convicted the accused for the offence under

Section 304 (ii) of IPC.

6. On a combined reading of the medical witnesses PW.12

Dr.S.Mugilvizhi and PW.13 Dr.Anandhi, coupled with Ex.P.5 Seizure

mahazar, Ex.P.10 Postmortem Certificate, Ex.P.11 Toxicology Report and

Ex.P.12 Serology Report, the trial Court has rightly come to the

conclusion that the deceased Suganraj died due to the homicidal

violence. And based upon the report of the Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.13 coupled

with police witnesses has concurred with the respondent police that the

seen of the crime is at Konkancherri Peralamman Temple.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the

learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent/complaina