SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 73700

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Sathish Kumar, M. Jothiraman, JJ
Murugan – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Crl.A.No.485 of 2019



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: R.Amburosh
For the Respondents: A.Damodaran, M.Arifa Thasneem

In the absence of a charge under Section 34 IPC, an accused cannot be convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC simpliciter for the acts of co-accused juveniles, especially when the injuries attributed to the appellant were non-fatal and inconsistent.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 IPC - Murder - Conviction - Reliability of evidence - Accused charged under Section 302 IPC simpliciter - Absence of charge under Section 34 IPC - Prosecution failing to establish common intention - Injuries attributed to the accused were superficial and not on vital parts - Fatal injury attributed to juvenile co-accused - Conviction lacks legal basis in the absence of charge of common intention or evidence of overt act leading to death. (Paras 20, 24, 25)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(iii) - Appeal against conviction - Scope of interference - Appellate court duty to ensure conviction is legally sound - Inconsistent witness testimony regarding the accused's role in the assault - Mere presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence with family members does not satisfy the requirements to infer common intention or direct participation in the murder. (Paras 22, 23, 25)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for murder of his niece's husband following a family dispute involving the appellant and his sons (juveniles). Evidence suggested that while the accused attempted to intervene in a domestic dispute, a subsequent confrontation occurred where the juveniles committed the fatal stabbing. The trial court convicted the appellant for murder despite injuries sustained by the deceased being attributed to the sons.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the fatal injury was caused by the juvenile and that the injuries attributed to the appellant were minor and non-fatal. Because the charge was strictly under Section 302 IPC without the aid of Section 34 IPC, the conviction could not be sustained.

Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is sustainable in the absence of a charge of common intention when the fatal blow was inflicted by a co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: A person cannot be convicted for a substantive offence of murder (Section 302 IPC) based on the criminal act of a co-accused in the absence of a charge and evidence establishing a common intention (Section 34 IPC).

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial court findings and procedural history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
2. summary of appellate arguments regarding witness reliability and charge applicability. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
3. court's analysis highlighting the lack of common intention charge and inconsistent evidence. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. final order of acquittal based on lack of sustainable evidence for murder charge. (Para 26)

J U D G M E N T

(Judgment was delivered by N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.)

This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the judgment passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in S.C.No.205 of 2017, dated 19.02.2019, convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

2.The case of the prosecution is as follows :

The deceased is the husband of P.W.1. Since P.W.1's parents were no more, she was brought up by her father's elder brother Selvanathan and his wife (P.W.3). The accused is the younger brother of P.W.1's father. P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1. The uncles of P.W.1 gave her in marriage to the deceased. Out of wedlock, the couple had a female child. The deceased was a drunkard. He used to come to the house after taking liquor and used to beat his wife P.W.1. Therefore, there used to be frequent quarrel between P.W.1 and the deceased and she (P.W.1) would come to her parental home often. While so, on 22.12.2016, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife and P.W.1 left the house and came to her aunt's (P.W.3's) house. When the accused (younger paternal uncle of P.W.1) and other elder family members questioned as to why she had left her matrimonial house, she said there was a quarrel between her and her husband and hence, she came to her parental house. On 25.12.2016, the deceased came to P.W.1's house to take her and his child back to his house. At that time, the accused took the deceased to a funeral of their relative. After returning from the funeral, the accused asked the deceased as to why he is taking liquor and beating her daughter frequently. At that time, the accused's sons Vellingiri and Dilipan (juveniles) were also there in the house. Infuriated by the question of the accused, the deceased said that he will continue to do the same and asked the accused not to question it. Hearing this, the sons of the accused also insulted the deceased and there ensued a quarrel among them. At the intervention of neighbours (Rajesh) and Saravanan, the quarrel ended and the deceased and the accused and his sons left the place. At 6.00 p.m., when P.W.1's brother Karthikeyan (P.W.2) came to the house, P.W.1 explained about the incident to P.W.2, and P.W.2 took the deceased along with him to the accused's place to question the act of the accused and his sons. At that time, P.W.1 and her aunt P.W.3 followed them. When P.W.2 and deceased questioned the accused, the accused's sons abused the deceased and one of the sons, Vellingiri, took out a knife (M.O.1) and stabbed the deceased on the centre of his neck and head. The accused was also carrying a knife (M.O.3) and when he tried to attack the deceased, the deceased warded off the attack and therefore, the deceased sustained injury on his hand. The other son of the accused Dilipan stabbed P.W.2 using a U-shaped knife (M.O.2) on his neck and hip. The deceased succumbed to the injuries at the spot itself. The accused and his sons fled the scene of occurrence. The injured P.W.2 was taken to the hospital in an Ambulance. Thereafter, P.W.1 went to the Police Station and lodged a compliant (Ex.P1).

3.On receipt of the complaint (Ex.P1), P.W.13 (Sub-Inspector of Police) registered an FIR in Crime No.302 of 2016 for the offences under Sections 302 and 307 IPC as against Velligiri, Murugan (accused) and Dilipan and forwarded a copy of the FIR to the Court as well as

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top