Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 24922
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR
Pavithra – Appellant
Versus
State rep – Respondent
The decision reaffirms that actions taken under severe psychological distress with no malice may lead to a conviction for culpable homicide rather than murder, warranting less severe penalties.
Headnote:
Criminal Law - Offences Against the Person - IPC Sections [304(1), 334] - The court discussed the standards for conviction in cases involving psychological stress and sustained provocation, noting how it influences sentencing decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for causing injuries to herself and her two children at Marina Beach, resulting in the death of one child. The prosecution relied on eyewitness accounts, but the defense contested their credibility and presented doubts regarding the factual scenario.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt due to doubts surrounding eyewitness testimony and the absence of supporting evidence from medical personnel, concluding that the appellant acted under extreme mental stress.
Issues: Whether the appellant's actions constituted culpable homicide or murder, and how mental state and circumstances impacted her culpability and the applicability of legal exceptions.
Ratio Decidendi: The absence of malice or ill-will, alongside the stressful circumstances leading to the actions, suggested a classification under culpable homicide rather than murder, allowing for leniency in sentencing.
Final Decision: The appeal is partly allowed; the appellant is found guilty of Section 304(1) and 334 IPC, and is sentenced to the period already undergone.
ORDER
This appeal filed to set aside the judgment dated 17.10.2023 in S.C.No.86 of 2021 delivered by the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethi Mandram, Allikulam, Chennai and acquit the appellant from the above case.
2.The appellant/accused in S.C.No.86 of 2021 was convicted by the trial Court by judgment dated 17.10.2023 and sentenced to undergo 7 years simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo two months simple imprisonment for offence under Section 304(i) of I.P.C. and one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo one week simple imprisonment for offence under Section 334 of I.P.C., against which, the present appeal.
3.The case of the prosecution is that PW1, a horse rider in Marina Beach, on 09.10.2019 at about 6.00 p.m., saw appellant sitting in the Beach along with two kids one female child aged about six years and male child aged about three years, crying. When he enquired the reason he was asked to leave the place. Thereafter he left 15 minutes later PW1 was come to the same place, saw appellant shouting in pain having M.O.1/blade, slitting the throat of both daughter, son and herself. PW1 snatched the blade from the appellant and threw it on a near by boat, called for help. PW5 on patrol duty in ATV vehicle in the beach sand came to the spot, somebody in the crowd by then informed 108 Ambulance and Ambulance was coming to the main road near Kannagi statue, all three injured taken in ATV vehicle to the main road, they were shifted to the Ambulance and taken to hospital. The de-facto complainant followed and visited the injured in the Gosha Hospital, Triplicane, on coming to know female child died and the appellant and her son sent to Children Hospital and Rajiv Ghandhi Government Hospital for treatment, PW1 lodged a complaint/Ex.P1 at about 7.30 p.m. with PW11, who registered a case in Crime No.483 of 2019 for offence under Sections 302, 307 and 309 of I.P.C. PW11 visited the scene of occurrence, prepared mahazar, enquired witnesses, visited hospital, enquired Doctors, collected medical records, conducted inquest on the body of the girl child and on conclusion of the investigation charge sheet filed.
4.During trial, on the side of the prosecution PW1 to PW11 examined, Exs.P1 to P21 marked and M.O.1 to M.O.6 produced. On the side of the defence no witnesses examined and no documents marked. On conclusion of trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant as above. 5.The contention of the appellant is that the presence of PW1 in the scene of occurrence and lodging Ex.P1/complaint highly doubtful, unbelievable. PW1 admits his signature in Ex.P1/complaint, but the occurrence narrated in the complaint recorded in F.I.R. are in variance to his deposition. In this case, Ex.P1/complaint becomes doubtful. Hence, the case to be thrown out on that score. PW1 in his evidence states that he does not know the name of the appellant and her two kids. But in the complaint/Ex.P1, the names of the appellant and her children given. It is also to be seen that the occurrence place is far away from the road. On the sand towards the water, there is no light in the scene of occurrence. The trial Court on its own gives reasoning, since PW1 a horse rider familiar to the beach, could have seen in the dim light which is subjective without materials.
5.1. From the rough sketch it is seen that the lights available in the service road, far away from the scene of occurrence and throw of the light is only upto 100 to 150 meters, but the scene of occurrence is more than 600 to 700 meters away. In this case, projected eye witnesses are PW1 and PW2. PW1 does not state about presence of PW2 and PW2 does not refer to PW1. Thus the presence of both PW1 and PW2 becomes doubtful. He further submitted that PW5/Patrol constable, who came in the AVT vehicle not mentioned presence of PW1 and PW2. The names of the appellant and her kids not known to anyone. It is not in the evidence that appellant g
