Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 36725
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, JJ
M.Prasanth – Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police – Respondent
Crl.A(MD)No.268 of 2020
Mr.R.Venkateswaran, Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
The court established that a homicide resulting from a sudden quarrel without premeditation can be classified under Section 304 Part II IPC rather than Section 302 IPC.
Headnote:
Murder - Criminal Appeal - IPC Section 302, 304 - The court modified the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC, emphasizing the lack of premeditation and the nature of the incident as a sudden quarrel.
Fact of the Case:
The accused was convicted for murdering the deceased following a dispute over confiscated electric motor pumpsets. The prosecution claimed the accused had a motive due to the deceased's involvement in the confiscation operation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the accused caused the death of the deceased, the incident stemmed from a sudden quarrel rather than premeditated murder, leading to a modification of the conviction.
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC should be upheld or modified based on the nature of the incident and the accused's intent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the incident was not premeditated and occurred in the heat of passion during a sudden quarrel, justifying a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC.
Final Decision: The conviction was modified to Section 304 Part II IPC, sentencing the accused to four years of rigorous imprisonment.
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of this Court was delivered by C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.) The sole accused in S.C.No.16 of 2017 aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.06.2020 of the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Theni by which judgment, the appellant/accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default to undergo further imprisonment of one year simple imprisonment, has filed the present Criminal Appeal.
2.Even before proceeding to state the facts of the case, it must be mentioned that in the FIR, two accused were named, namely, this appellant, Prasanth and Alagumalai, an Advocate. Subsequently, the Investigating Officer had filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate Court at Uthamapalayam to delete the name of Alagumalai from the array of accused.
3.It is the case of the prosecution that at Kullappa Goundanpatti, many peoples were illegally drawing water using electric motor pumpset from Mullai-Periyar river. The officials of Public Works Department and Electricity Department had confiscated the electric motor pump sets. In this manner, the electric motor pumpset of Alagumalai, a relative of the accused, Prasanth was also confiscated. In this operation to confiscate the electric motor pumpsets, the deceased Raja had assisted the Public Works Department and Electricity Department officials. It is therefore contended that the accused had harboured enmity against the deceased. It is further stated that four days prior to the incident, the accused had threatened Raja that he would kill him.
4.It is further stated by the prosecution that on 07.03.2014 in the night at 07.15 pm, when the deceased Raja was walking across the road near the broiler shop belonging to Alagumalai, the accused called him and stabbed him with knife. When Raja tried to escape, the accused is said to have chased him and again stabbed him on the back. It is further stated that the deceased was then taken to the Cumbum Government Hospital by the eye witnesses, Manikodi (PW-1) Perumal (PW-2) and Chandran (PW-3). Raja died that very night at 09.15 pm. Thereafter, PW-1, Manikodi, one of the eye witnesses had lodged a complaint before the Gudalur South Police Station at 10.00 pm. On the basis of the said complaint, FIR in Cr.No.30 of 2014 was registered at 10.00 pm for commission of offence under Section 302 IPC against two accused, Prasanth and Alagumalai. After investigation, an alteration report was filed by the Inspector of Police, Gudalur South Police Station dropping Alagumalai from the array of accused and later, final report was filed alleging commission of offence punishable under against the accused Prasanth alone.
5.The final report was taken cognizance as P.R.C. No.25 of 2015 by the Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam. The learned Judicial Magistrate, Uthamapalayam, complied with the conditions stipulated under Section 207 Cr.P.C. and furnished copies of documents to the accused and later, since the offence was triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions, committed the case to the Principal District and Sessions Court at Theni District.
6.The Principal District and Sessions Court at Theni had taken the case on file as S.C. No.16 of 2017 and framed charges under Section 302 IPC against the accused. When questioned, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. The Session Case was then made over to the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Theni for trial. During the course of trial, to prove the charge, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-14 witnesses and marked Ex-P1 to Ex-P12 exhibits. Further, Ex-C1 and Ex-C2 were marked as Court exhibits. The prosecution also produced MO-1 to MO-7 material objects.
7.On conclusion of trial, by judgment dated 08.06.2020, the appellant/accused was convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to underg
