IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 13.03.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

Crl.A.No.218 of 2016

Karthik

... Appellant

vs.

The State of Tamil Nadu

Represented by

The Inspector of Police,

Thirumanur Police Station,

Ariyalur District.

(Crime No.306 of 2013)

...Respondent

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

the judgment and sentence dated 29.02.2016 of the Additional District and

Sessions Judge, Ariyalur in S.C.No.73 of 2014, and set the appellant at liberty

forthwith.

For Appellant

: Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel for

M/s.N.Elayaraja

For Respondent

: Mr.L.Baskaran

Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order

passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur in

Page No.1/12

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

S.C.No.73 of 2014, dated 18.02.2016, convicting and sentencing the appellant

in the following manner:

S.No

Conviction for offence

under

Sentence/Punishment

1

Section 304 (ii) IPC

Ten Years rigorous imprisonment and to pay

a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default, to

undergo simple imprisonment for one year.

2

Section 294 (b) IPC

To pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to

undergo simple imprisonment for one week.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Ayothi was having

agricultural lands on the northern side and the appellant was having his lands

adjacent to the lands of the deceased. The further case of the prosecution is that

the water pipe was destroyed and taken away and the appellant thought that it

was the deceased, who had done the same. In view of this incident, there was a

prior enmity between the parties. On 27.12.2013 at about 3 p.m., the deceased

went to his lands and at that point of time there was a wordy quarrel between

the deceased and the appellant and the appellant is said to have hit the deceased

with chappal. This incident was seen by PW3 to PW5 and they had separated

the appellant and the deceased. The deceased got back home at about 4.30 p.m.,

and he was found in a very tensed mood. When PW1 his son questioned about

Page No.2/12

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

the same, the deceased informed him about the incident. PW1 therefore decided

to question the appellant and hence, when he along with his father was going

near the house of Shekar Asari (PW8). The appellant was standing at that place

and he had a wooden stick (MO1) in his hand. When PW1 questioned the

appellant as to why he had hit his father, the appellant is said to have abused in

a filthy language and attacked the deceased with MO1 in his head and neck.

The deceased fell down unconscious and later he died.

3.PW1, who is the son of the deceased, gave a complaint (Ex.P1) to

PW14 on 30.12.2013 at about 11 p.m. Based on this complaint, an FIR

(EX.P11) came to be registered by PW14 in Crime No.306 of 2013 for offence

under Section 302 of IPC at about 11 p.m. on 30.12.2013.

4.The investigation was taken up by PW14 and he immediately deputed

PW11 Head Constable to take the body for post-mortem. PW14 went to the

scene of crime and prepared the Observation Mahazer marked as Ex.P2 and

Rough Sketch marked as Ex.P7. Thereafter, he recorded the statements of the

witnesses under Section 161 (3) of Cr.P.C. PW14, thereafter, conducted the

inquest on the dead body of the deceased and prepared Inquest Report marked

as Ex.P8.

Page No.3/12

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

5.The post-mortem was conducted by PW12 and the Post-mortem

Certificate Ex.P6 was marked through PW12. In the Post-mortem Certificate,

the following injuries were noted:

Eyes Closed Frothy discharges presence over Right side of

mouth

1.Left side temporal region 2x1x5 cm laceration

2.1x1 cm abrasion over left ear

3.Skull:

a.Fracture left side temporal

b.EDH, SDH

c. Dural tears

Chest, abdomen – Intact

6.A final opinion was given by PW1