Madras High Court
Rajesh @ Pon Rajesh Kannan vs State Through on 29 October, 2021
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.ANANTHI
CRL.A (MD) No.550 of 2019
and Crl.M.P. (MD) No.7075 of 2021
Rajesh @ Pon Rajesh Kannan .. Appellant/Sole Accused
-vs-
State through
The Inspector of Police,
Kanyakumari Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
(Crime No.189 of 2010). .. Respondent/Complainant
Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment of the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari
Division at Nagercoil, in S.C.No.95 of 2010, dated 07.04.2016.
For Appellant :: Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondent :: Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.)
The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.95 of 2010, on the file
of the Sessions Court, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil. He stood
charged and convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-,
in default, to undergo two years Simple Imprisonment. Challenging the
aforesaid conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with
this Criminal Appeal.
2.The case of the prosecution in brief as follows:
The deceased Renganathan, is the brother of P.W.1. On
15.04.2010, at about 9.30 p.m., the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 3, have
participated in a Chithirai Temple festival. At that time, the accused came
there to answer his nature call, and the deceased asked him some
tobacco, when refused, the deceased slapped the accused. Then, there
was a quarrel between them and P.Ws.1 to 3 pacified and separated them.
Again about 10.00 p.m., again there was a quarrel, at that time, the
accused attacked deceased with a bill-hook indiscriminately and caused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
his death. Immediately, P.W.1, brother of the deceased, lodged a
complaint (Ex.P.1), before the respondent police at 1.00 p.m.
3.P.W.11, Sub-Inspector of Police attached to the respondent
police, on receipt of the complaint, registered a F.I.R. (Ex.P.15) in Crime
No.488 of 2014, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sent the
original F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Nagercoil, through P.W.8,
Head Constable, and copies to the Inspector of Police and higher
officials.
4.P.W.12, Inspector of Police, on receipt of the F.I.R., rushed to the
scene of occurrence, prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P.4) and Rough
Sketch (Ex.P.16) with the help of torch light and collected blood stained
soil (M.O.4) and sample soil (M.O.5) in the presence of witnesses. Then,
he conducted inquest over the dead body between 3.30 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.
in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and prepared the inquest
report (Ex.P.17). Thereafter, he sent the body to Government Medical
College Hospital, Asaripallam, for postmortem autopsy through P.W.9,
Head Constable with the requisition letter (Ex.P.6).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
5.P.W.6, a Tutor in Forensic Medicine, Kanyakumari Medical
College, Nagergoil, conducted postmortem autopsy on the dead body on
16.04.2010, at 12.15 p.m., and issued the postmortem report (Ex.P.7) and
found the following injuries:
“The following ante-mortem injuries noted:-
1) 5 x 2cm x scalp thick horizontal cut injury seen
over the centre of back of head.
2) 13 x 3cm x bone deep horizontal cut injury seen
over the left side of nose to left cheek. On
examination the underlying muscles, left nasal and
cheek bones found out at that site.
3) 10 x 2cm x bone deep oblique cut injury seen over
the left side of chin and left side of lower jaw. On
examination the underlying left side lower jaw bone
found out at that site.
4) 7 x 2cm x muscle deep oblique cut injury seen over
the right side of chin.
5) 2 x 1cm x muscle deep oblique cut injury seen over
the left side of front of middle of neck.
6) 6 x 1cm contusion seen over the middle of left
collar bone.
7) 4 x 1cm contusion seen over the front of left
shoulder.
8) 3 x 1cm x muscle deep oblique cut injury seen over
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
the outer aspect of right hand.
9) 3 x 2cm abrasion seen over the front of left knee.
O/D Scalp skull dura:-
Sub scalpal bruising seen over the back of head
measuring 15 x 10cm. Diffused Sub dural and Sub
Arachnoid Haemorrhage noted over both cerebral
hemisphered more on left side noted.”
He was of the opinion that, the deceased would appear to have died of
shock and haemorrhage due to multiple cut injuries.
6.In the mean time, P.W.12 examined the witnesses and recorded
their statements. On 16.04.2010. at 1.30 p.m., he arrested the accused and
on enquiry, he voluntarily gave a confession. Based on the disclosure
statement, P.W.12 recovered the bill-hook (M.O.1) and sent the accused
to remand for judicial custody. After completing the investigation, he
filed the final report for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C.
7.Considering the above materials, the trial Court framed charges
as stated above and the accused denied the same as false. In order to
prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses,
marked 22 documents and also produced 5 material objects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
8.Out of the witnesses examined, P.W.1, is the brother of the
deceased. According to him, P.Ws.1 to 3 went to a temple festival near a
tea stall there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and
the accused attacked the deceased with bill-hook. P.Ws.2 and 3, friends
of the accused, are also eyewitnesses to the occurrence. They have also
reiterated the evidence of P.W.1. P.W.4 is witness to the arrest and
recovery of material objects. P.W.5 is the witness to observation mahazar
and rough sketch and also recovery of M.Os.4 and 6.
9.P.W.6 is the postmortem doctor, who conducted postmortem
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. P.W.7, Head Clerk, who
received the material objects and sent it for chemical analysis. P.W.8,
Head Constable, handed over the original F.I.R. to the Court. P.W.9, Head
Constable, identified the dead body for postmortem. P.W.10, Head
Constable, handed over the materials objects to Forensic Science
Laboratory for chemical examination.
10.P.W.11, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered the First Information
Report. P.W.12, Inspector of Police, conducted investigation and filed a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
final report. P.W.13, Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,
Tirunelveli, examined the material objects and issued biological report
(Ex.P.20). P.W.14, Deputy Director, Forensic Science Laboratory,
Madurai, examined the material objects and issued serology reports
(Exs.P.21 and 22).
11.The above incriminating materials were put to the accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C.. The accused denied the same as false and he
examined the Executive Officer, Kottaram Town Panchayat, as D.W.1 to
show that at the time of occurrence, there was no light at the scene of
occurrence. The R.T.I. Application given to D.W.1 was marked as Ex.X.1
and the reply given by D.W.1 was marked as Ex.R.1.
12.Having considered the above materials, the trial Court
convicted the appellant/accused and sentenced him as state above in first
para of the judgment. Challenging the aforesaid conviction and sentence,
the appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
13.Mr.R.Alagumani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that the occurrence has taken place on 15.04.2010 and it
was only due a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased.
Even as per the prosecution case, the deceased attacked the accused first.
The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses. The
prosecution has not established the motive for the occurrence. There was
no light in the scene of occurrence, hence, P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have
seen the occurrence. The trial Court without considering the above
circumstances, convicted the accused. Hence, he prayed for acquittal of
the appellant/accused.
14.Opposing the same, Mr.S.Ravi learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that, P.Ws.1 to 3, who
are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, have clearly deposed that the accused
attacked the deceased indiscriminately with bill-hook and caused his
death. There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. The
medical evidence corroborated the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3. Hence, the
trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C.
and the same requires no interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
15.We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the
records carefully.
16.There are three eyewitnesses in this case. P.W.1, brother of
deceased and P.Ws.2 and 3, friends of the deceased. On the date of
occurrence, the deceased and P.Ws.1 to 3 participated in the local temple
festival. At about 9.30 p.m., the accused came to answer the nature call
and the deceased asked for tobacco, when the accused said no, the
deceased slapped the accused, then, there was a quarrel between the
parties. Again at 10.00 p.m., there was quarrel between the accused and
the deceased, in which, the accused attacked the deceased with the bill-
hook and caused his death. Even though P.W.1 is the brother of the
deceased, P.Ws.2 and 3 are independent eyewitnesses and their testimony
are consistent. The medical evidence also corroborated the evidence of
eyewitnesses. The evidence of P.W.6, Doctor, and Postmortem report
(Ex.P.7) show that the injuries were caused with the weapon recovered
under the confession of the accused. That apart, the arrest and recovery
were proved by the prosecution and there is no discrepancy in the
evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
17.Even though the accused examined D.W.1 to show that the
occurrence took place in the night and electricity was not available in the
scene of occurrence, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it could be seen
that in a temple festival, near a tea shop occurrence had taken place, and
the eyewitnesses had the benefit of seeing the occurrence with the lights
erected for the temple festival. Considering those circumstances, we are
of the view that the prosecution has clearly established that it is only the
accused attacked the deceased and caused his death. The trial Court has
rightly come to the conclusion that the accused only caused the death of
the deceased.
18.The next question arises for consideration is that, what was the
offence said to have committed by the accused by that act. From the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, it could be seen that before the occurrence, the
accused came there to answer the nature call, where the deceased
provoked him and developed quarrel and during the wordy quarrel, out
of sudden provocation, the accused attacked the deceased with a weapon
available in the scene of occurrence and caused injury. Even though the
accused has no intention to cause his death, he has intention to cause
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
injury, which is likely to cause the death of the deceased, which is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. Hence, the
act of the accused will fall under the third limb of Section 300 I.P.C.
Further, from the evidence of eyewitnesses, it could be seen that the
occurrence has taken place in a wordy quarrel, without any premeditation
and in a heat of passion, the accused lost his mental balance and attacked
the deceased with weapon available in the place of occurrence, which
caused the death of the deceased. Hence, the act of the accused till fall
under the fourth exception of Section 300 I.P.C., hence, he is liable to be
convicted only under Section 304(i) I.P.C. not under 302 I.P.C.
19.So far as the sentence is concerned, the accused is an young
man, has no bad antecedents and he has a chance to reform. Considering
the mitigating circumstances as well as the aggravating circumstances,
we are of the view that imposing a sentence of ten years Rigorous
Imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo two
years Simple Imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
20.In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the
conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused, by the
Sessions Court, Kanyakumari Division at Nagercoil, in S.C.No.95 of
2010, by the judgment dated 07.04.2016, under Section 302 I.P.C. are
hereby set aside, instead the appellant/accused is convicted under Section
304(i) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo Simple
Imprisonment for two years. The sentences already undergone shall be
given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. After the period of Appeal,
M.Os.1 to 5 shall be destroyed. The respondent is directed to take steps
to procure the accused for undergoing the remaining period of sentence.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
(V.B.D.J.,) (S.A.I.,J)
29.10.2021
Internet: yes/no
Index : yes/no
sj
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy,
shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant
concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
To
1. The Sessions Judge,
Kanyakumari Division,
@ Nagercoil.
2.The Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Nagercoil,
Kanyakumari District.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Kanyakumari Police Station,
Kanyakumari District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
Criminal Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Crl.A.(MD) No.550 of 2019
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
and
S.ANANTHI, J.
sj
Criminal Appeal No.(MD) No.550 of 2019
29.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
