Madras High Court
Muruganantham vs State on 29 November, 2021
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
and
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
Muruganantham ... Appellant
-vs-
State, represented by
The Inspector of Police
Patteswaram Police Station
Thanjavur District ... Respondent
(Crime No.172/2013)
PRAYER: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973, to call for the records in S.C.No.207 of 2014, on the file of the learned
Additional District Sessions Judge (FTC), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District
and set aside the Judgment dated 11.12.2018 and acquit the appellant of the
charges levelled as against him.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Veilmuthu
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
_______________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
This criminal appeal is filed by the sole accused, who was found
guilty by the Trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 and 294(b) I.P.C.
2. The Trial Court, having found that the charges framed against the
accused are proved, has imposed life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- in
default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 302 I.P.C. and one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 294(b) I.P.C.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.08.2013, at about 07.00
p.m., at Pudupadaiyur Vellala Street, near Water Pump, there was a quarrel
between the accused and his father Balasubramanian. At that time, the
deceased Swaminathan, a resident of the same street, interfered and tried to
pacify the father and son, who were quarrelling. The accused herein
infuriated by the intervention of the deceased, pushed him down uttering
filthy and abusive words. Due to the forcible push, the deceased
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
Swaminathan fell down and sustained head injury. Thereafter, he was taken
to the Hospital immediately. However, he succumbed to the head injury on
the next day at 10.45 a.m. Soon after the occurrence, one Krishnaveni, wife of
the injured Swaminathan, has gone to the Police Station and reported about
the incident. The complaint was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police,
Patteswaram Police Station, in Crime No.172 of 2013, for the offence under
Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. However, on receiving the intimation of
death of the injured Swaminathan, the respondent Police altered the charges
for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) and 302 I.P.C. and the
altered F.I.R. was also forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II,
Kumbakonam. On completion of the investigation, the prosecution filed the
final report and on serving the documents relied on by the prosecution, the
case was committed to the Sessions Court as the offence committed by the
accused being triable by the Court of Sessions.
4. The following two charges were framed against the accused:
Charge-1:
On 26.08.2013, at about 07.00 p.m. near
Balasubramanian's thatched house-water pump at
Pudupadaiyur Vellala Street, the accused and his father
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
Balasubramanian were quarrelling as usual. At that time,
Swaminathan (deceased), a resident of the same street, came
out from his house and tried to pacify the father and son. At
that time, the accused using filthy language questioned the
deceased who he is to interfere in the fight between him and
his father and thereby, committed the offence triable under
Section 294(b) I.P.C.
Charge-2:
On the same day, in continuation of the same
incident, the accused slapped the deceased on his cheek and
pushed him down forcibly and threatened that if he interferes
in his family affairs henceforth, he will kill him. Due to the
push, the deceased fell down on the floor, sustained injuries
on the occipital region and died subsequently and thereby,
committed the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
5. Since the accused denied the charges, he was subjected to trial.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses,
marked 18 documents and 03 material objection. On the side of the accused,
no evidence was let in and no document was marked.
7. P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant, is the wife of the deceased
Swaminathan. P.W.1, in her evidence, has spoken about the incident
occurred on 26.08.2013 at about 07.00 p.m. According to P.W.1, on the
fateful day, while she and her husband were watching television in their
house, they heard alarm that somebody is killing. Therefore, she and her
husband Swaminathan came out of the house and saw the accused, who was
hitting his father Balasubramanian with wooden log. Hence, she and her
husband intervened and reprimanded the accused that it has become a
routine for them to fight like this and cause disturbance. Immediately, the
accused bounced on the husband of P.W.1 that who is he to interfere with his
family affairs and pushed him down. Due to the forcible push of the accused,
her husband fell down and sustained injury on the back of his head and
sustained bleeding injury. On seeing blood oozing in his nose, mouth and
ears, P.W.1 along with Rathinam, Latha Natarajan, Sadasivam and
Punithavathi, who are all neighbours in the locality, brought the injured
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
Swaminathan to Tanjore Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital and admitted him for
treatment. On the next day, the injured Swaminathan was declared dead at
about 10.00 a.m. Thereafter, the Police recorded the complaint given by P.W.
1. Her complaint was marked as Ex.P1. The evidence of P.W.1 is
corroborated by P.W.2-Natarajan, P.W.5-Baskar, P.W.6-Punitha and P.W.19-
Sathyamoorthi.
8. P.W.17-Alagesan, Inspector of Police, has initially taken up the
investigation and being satisfied that the accused has caused the death of
Swaminathan, arrested the accused on 28.08.2013 at about 02.00 p.m.,
recorded his confession statement and remanded him to the judicial custody.
9. The Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence let in by the
prosecution, has concluded that it is not a case of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder to bring it under the offence punishable under Section
304(II) I.P.C., since without any provocation, the accused pushed down the
deceased and caused fatal injury. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the
accused is found guilty for the charges under Sections 302 and 294(b) I.P.C.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
10. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, this appeal is
filed by the accused.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses in a proper perspective and there is embellishment and
improvement in the case of the prosecution, which would go to show that the
case of the prosecution is highly improbable. According to the learned counsel
for the appellant, the alleged witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.Ws.1 to 6
are interested witnesses and their presence at the SOC, even according to
their testimony, is highly improbable. However, the Trial Court has accepted
them as eye witnesses and held the accused guilty of culpable homicide
amounting to murder.
12. The learned counsel for the appellant would specifically submit
that even the prosecution case is taken as proved, there is no intention to
cause murder or no knowledge to cause injury, which is likely to cause death.
The learned counsel for the appellant would specifically submit that even
according to the F.I.R. and the deposition of P.W.1, who is the wife of the
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
deceased, in the fit of anger, the accused pushed down the deceased, who
interfered with the family affairs. Therefore, the learned counsel would plead
that the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence
under Section 302 I.P.C. purely based on the hearsay evidence and without
any evidence to satisfy the ingredients of Section 300 I.P.C.
13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State,
pointing out the testimony of P.W.1, wife of the deceased, her complaint
(Ex.P1) along with postmortem report (Ex.P7) would submit that the case of
the prosecution is well proved by these documents that without any
provocation, the accused inflicted injury, which is likely to cause death in the
ordinary course. The deceased, who is a good samaritan, wanted to pacify the
father and son quarrelling in a public place and lost his life due to the act of
the accused and therefore, the punishment imposed by the Trial Court has to
be confirmed.
14. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused
the materials available on record.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
15. This Court, on considering the postmortem report (Ex.P7), which
discloses the following antemortem injuries:
“1.Scalpal contusion of size 18x8 cm seen
over occipital region. 2) Marked sub dural
haematoma of size 50gm noted over frontal lobe,
3) Frontal lobe found lacerated. 4) Diffuse thin
SDH SAH noted over temporal and parietal and
occipital lobe. 5) Intra cerebral haemorrihage
noted both temporal and parietal lobe. 6) Fissure
fracture of length 7 cm noted over occipital
region.”
and the ocular evidence relied on by the prosecution, holds that the death of
Swaminathan was caused due to the head injury as noted above and the
fissure fracture of 7 cm length over occipital region caused the death. This
tallies with the ocular evidence of P.W.1 duly supported by the other
witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2 to 6. This singular injury on the occipital region of
the deceased was not caused by any weapon or with intention, admittedly it
was caused due to sudden push of the accused. Therefore, this Court finds no
evidence to hold that the push was with any intention to cause death.
16. It is also to be noted that P.W.1, in her testimony, states that the
accused after pushing her husband down, uttered that since P.W.1 (wife) is
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
present, he spare the deceased without killing. Therefore, the mens rea of the
accused, even by his own utterance, indicates that he had no intention at that
time to cause the death of Swaminathan and the injury was caused due to the
sudden push. Since the death was caused due to sudden quarrel in a fit of
anger without any premeditation, this Court holds that the act of the accused
would fall under the Explanation “culpable homicide not amounting to
murder” and the benefits of Exception (IV) to Section 300 I.P.C. deserve to be
extended to him.
17. Therefore, we are inclined to modify the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant from one under Section 302 I.P.C. to one under
Section 304(II) I.P.C. and sentence the appellant to undergo five years rigorous
imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo two months
simple imprisonment. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant
for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C., by the Trial Court stands
confirmed.
18. In the result,
➢ The criminal appeal is partly allowed;
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
➢ The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant /
accused, by Judgment dated 11.12.2018, in S.C.No.207
of 2014, on the file the learned Additional District
Sessions Jude, Fast Track Court, Kumbakonam, for the
offence under Section 302 I.P.C. are hereby set aside.
Instead, the appellant / accused is convicted under
Section 304(II) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of
Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment
for two months.
➢ Insofar as the conviction and sentence for the offence
under Section 294(b) I.P.C. is concerned, the order of
the Trial stands confirmed.
➢ Both the sentences shall run concurrently.
➢ Suspension of sentence granted by this Court, on
24.04.2019 in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3273 of 2019, stands
cancelled.
➢ Since the appellant / accused is on bail, it is directed
that the Trial Court shall take steps to secure him and
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
to commit him to prison to serve out the period of
sentence.
➢ The period of sentence already undergone by the
appellant / accused shall be set off under Section 428 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure,1973.
➢ Insofar as the disposal of material objects, the order of
the Trial Court stands confirmed.
➢ Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be adjusted
towards the fine amount now imposed.
[S.V.N., J.] [G.J., J.]
29.11.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down
owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a
web copy of the Judgment may
be utilized for official purposes,
but, ensuring that the copy of the
Judgment that is presented is
the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate /
litigant concerned.
krk
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
To:
1.The Additional District Sessions Judge,
Fast Track Court,
Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District.
2.The Judicial Magistrate,
Judicial Magistrate Court,
Kumbakonam.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
and
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
krk
Crl.A.(MD) No.40 of 2019
29.11.2021
_______________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
