Madras High Court
Nagendran vs State Rep By on 8 September, 2021
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 08.09.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. BHARATHIDASAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
Criminal Appeal(MD)No.310 of 2018
Nagendran ... Appellant/Sole Accused
vs.
State rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Town Police Station,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District.
(In Crime No.380 of 2013) ... Respondent/Complainant
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973, against the judgment dated 26.06.2018 made in S.C.No.
16 of 2014 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court cum
Special Court for EC Act, Pudukkottai, convicting the appellant for the
alleged offences under Sections 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to pay he should
undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi, Counsel for
Government of Tamil Nadu(Criminal Side)
1/30
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by V. BHARATHIDASAN, J.)
The appellant is the sole accused. He stood charged for the
offences under Sections 341 and 302 IPC. The trial Court acquitted him,
for the offence under Section 341 IPC, and convicted him, under Section
302 IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, and also to pay
fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigours
imprisonment. Challenging the abovesaid conviction and sentence, the
appellant is before this Court, with this appeal.
2.The deceased by name, Kalidoss, is the friend of the
appellant/accused. Earlier, the deceased was working at Malaysia and
returned back to his native in the year 2013. Thereafter, he was running
a mechanical shop at Pudukkottai. The appellant is his close friend and
they used to consume liquor together. On 02.11.2013, a Diwali day, at
about 08.30 p.m., while the deceased was at his house, the
appellant/accused, came to his house and demanded money from the
deceased, for purchasing liquor, deceased denied, and there was a quarrel
between them, at that time, the appellant attacked the deceased with a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
wooden log available there. While the deceased fell down, he put a stone
on his head and caused his death, then ran away from the scene of
occurrence. Immediately, the deceased was taken to hospital, where he
was declared brought dead.
3.PW1, mother of the deceased, went to the police station and gave
a complaint(Ex.P1). PW11-Sub Inspector of Police, in the respondent
police station, based on the complaint, registered the FIR in Crime No.
380/2013(Ex.P6) and sent the same to the Judicial Magistrate Court and
sent copies of the same, to the investigating officer and higher officials.
4.On receipt of the FIR, one Ramamoorthy Inspector of Police in
the respondent police station(since dead), commenced the investigation
and rushed the scene of occurrence, where he prepared the observation
mahazar(Ex.P2), rough sketch(Ex.P7), in the presence of the witnesses
and arrested the accused. On such arrest, the accused voluntarily gave a
confession, based on the admissible portion of the confession, PW2
recovered a wooden log(MO1) and stone(MO2) under Ex.P3-Mahazar,
then, he recorded the statement of witnesses. Next day morning, at about
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
08.00 a.m., the Inspector of Police conducted inquest on the dead body in
the Government Hospital, Pudukottai, in the presence of the panchayatars
and witnesses and prepared inquest report in Ex.P8, and sent the body for
postmortem autopsy through a Constable. PW9, Doctor, working in
Pudukkottai Government Hospital, conducted postmortem autopsy of the
body of the deceased and gave postmortem report, Ex.P5. According to
him, death was due to injury in the major organs namely, brain and liver-
haemorrhage, The Inspector of Police continued the investigation and
recorded the statements of witnesses. Pending investigation, the
investigating officer met with an accident, and hence, the investigation
was handed over to PW12, who after recording the statement of
remaining witnesses, filed the final report before the concerned Judicial
Magistrate Court.
5.Considering the above materials, the trial Court framed the
charges as mentioned above and the accused denied the same as false. In
order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as 12
witnesses and marked 9 documents, apart from 2 material objects.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
6.Out of the witnesses examined, PW1, mother of the deceased, is
an eye-witness to the occurrence. According to her, on 02.11.2013, at
about 08.30 p.m., the accused came to the house of the deceased and
demanded money from him, when he refused, he attacked him with a
wooden log available there on his head, when he fell down, the accused
put a stone on his head and caused his death. PW2 is the brother of
PW1, according to him, at the time of occurrence, there was a quarrel
between the deceased and the accused, then he found the deceased in
pool of blood. PW3, sister of PW1, is also an eye-witness to the
occurrence. According to her, at the time of occurrence, the accused
demanded money from the deceased, while he refused, he attacked him
on his head and also put a stone on his head. PW4, uncle of the
deceased, is another eye-witness to the occurrence. According to him,
there was a quarrel and he saw the accused attacking the deceased, when
the deceased fell down, the accused sat over the deceased and beaten
him. PW5 is also closely related to the deceased, according to him, there
was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased, at that time, the
deceased attacked him with stone and also criminally intimidated the
deceased. PW6 is the Auto driver. According to him, at the time of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
occurrence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused, at
that time, both the accused and the deceased fell down in the scene of
occurrence. PW6 is a hearsay witness. PW7 is the father of the
deceased, he is a hearsay witness. PW8, Village Assistant, is witness to
recovery of MO1 and MO2, and also the confession of the accused.
PW9, Doctor, conducted postmortem autopsy and given postmortem
report(Ex.P5), which reads as follows:-
The body was first seen by the undersigned at 10.50
A.M. on 03.11.13. Its condition then was Rigor Mortis present
in all 4 limbs. Post-mortem commenced at 11.00 A.M. on
03.11.13.
Appearance found at the post-mortem:
External Injuries:
1)5x2x2cm laceration below chin.
2)2x2x1cm laceration below lip.
3)4x3xBone deep laceration above left eye.
4)Facial deformity left side with contusion around left
eye, left cheek & left side jaw and abnormal mobility of jaw.
5)Deformity of nose.
6)Crush injury left eyelid & contusion around left eye.
7)Multiple fracture, dislocation of teetj 5/8 – 4/6.
8)Abrasion over upper abdomen.
Internal Injuries:
1)Mutiple fractures over facial bones left side including
fracture at both upper & lower jaw and fracture dislocation of
multiple teeth.
2)Left eye ball ruptured.
3)Fissured fracture base of skull left side.
4)Linear fracture base of skull right anterior aspect.
5)On removing brain, there was a hematoma over
inferior surface of frontal lobe with laceration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
6)Upper part of brain & skull intact.
7)3x2cm laceration over inferior surface of left lobe of
liver.
Abdomen intact, Peritoneal cavity contains blood. Hyoid bone
& ribs intact. Heart intact contains clotted blood. Lungs &
stomach intact. Both kidneys, intestine, bladder intact. Spinal
cord intact.
Opinion as to cause of death
a)Reserved pending report of____________
b)The deceased would appear to have died of I am of the
opinion that the death could be due to injury to major vital
organs Brain & Liver – hemorrhage.''
According to him, the deceased appears to have died due to the injuries
in the major vital organs namely, brain and liver. PW10 is a hearsay
witness related to the deceased. PW11, Sub Inspector of Police, in the
respondent police station, registered the FIR, based on the complaint
given by PW1. PW12, investigating officer, filed charge sheet before the
concerned Judicial Magistrate Court, since the original investigating
officer died, pending investigation, he has given evidence based on the
records.
7.When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused,
the accused denied the same as false. Alleging that in the scene of
occurrence, the appellant has also suffered injury, he has examined the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
Doctor who has given treatment to him as DW1, and also marked the
accident register(Ex.D1). Considering those materials, the trial Court
convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.
8.Mr.C.Mayil Vahana Rajendran, learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that all the eye witnesses to the occurrence are interested
witnesses, and their testimony are also not consistent. There are material
discrepancies in their evidence and therefore, it is highly unsafe to
convict the accused based on their testimonies. The learned counsel for
the appellant further stated that from the evidence available on record, it
could be seen that at the time of occurrence, there was a quarrel between
the accused and the deceased, during that quarrel, out of sudden
provocation, the accused without having any intention to cause death,
said to have attacked the deceased. From the evidence of PW6, auto
driver who saw both the accused and the deceased found fell down in the
scene of occurrence, it could be seen that there was a sudden fight
between them and both of them attacked each other and fell down.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
9.The learned counsel for the appellant further stated that during
the occurrence, the appellant also suffered injuries all over the body and
he was taken to Government Hospital, Pudukkottai. It was suppressed by
the prosecution and the accused examined the Doctor who treated him as
DW1 and marked the accident register as Ex.D1. The prosecution failed
to explain the injuries found on the accused and suppressed the origin
and genesis of the case and come out with the false case implicating the
appellant. He further submitted that at any rate, the act of the accused
will only fall under the fourth limb of Section 300 IPC and also under the
fourth exception to Section 300 punishable under Section 304(ii) IPC.
10.Per contra, Mr.S.Ravi, learned counsel for the State submitted
that there are four eye-witnesses to the occurrence, all of them
consistently says that, only this accused came to the house of the
deceased, and quarrelled with demanding money, when he refused, he
attacked him with wooden log available in the scene of occurrence, when
the deceased fell down, he put a stone over his head and caused serious
head injury and the deceased succumb to those injuries. The medical
evidence also corroborates the evidence of eye witnesses. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
occurrence took place near the house of the deceased, the parents are eye
witnesses cannot be doubted, the accused attacked the deceased with an
intention of causing death, and the trial Court considering the materials
rightly convicted him under Section 302 IPC. Hence, there is no reason
to interfere with the well considered judgment of the trial Court.
11.We have considered the rival submissions and also perused the
records carefully.
12.PW1 is the mother of the deceased. According to her, both the
accused and the deceased were friends, used to consume liquor together.
On the date of occurrence, the accused demanded money from the
deceased, when he refused, he attacked him with wooden log and also
put a stone over his head and caused his death. According to PW2,
another eye-witness, and brother of PW1, there was a quarrel between
the accused and the deceased. PW3 is the sister of PW1. According to
her, at the time of occurrence, the accused demanded money from the
deceased, but he refused, then the attacked him on his head and also put a
stone over his head. However, PW4, uncle of the deceased, has given a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
different version, that, both the accused and the deceased went out of the
house and after half an hour, there was a quarrel between them, in the
scuffle, the deceased fell down and the accused sitting over the deceased,
attacked him. PW5, wife of PW4, according to her, her son informed her
that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused, at that
time, the accused put a stone on the head of the deceased. PW6, a Auto
driver, is an independent witness, according to him, at the time of
occurrence, there was a quarrel between the deceased and he found both
the accused and the deceased fell down. It is the consistent evidence of
all the eye witnesses that it is only the accused attacked the deceased
with wooden log and put a stone over his head and caused his death. The
medical evidence also corroborates the evidence of the eye witnesses.
Considering the above, we are of the considered view that it is only this
accused has attacked the deceased and caused his death. The trial Court
also considering the materials rightly held so.
13.The next question is what was the offence that was committed
by the accused. Whether the act of the accused amounts to murder or
culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
14.Killing of a human being by another human being is called
homicide. If the homicide is done with a culpable mental state, it is
called as culpable homicide or unlawful homicide. Some culpable
homicide are murders as per Section 300 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and
some culpable homicides may not amount to murder. In fine, all murders
are culpable homicide and all culpable homicides will not amount to
murder.
15.Section 299 of IPC, deals with culpable homicide, which reads
as follows:
"299. Culpable homicide.—Whoever
causes death by doing an act with the intention
of causing death, or with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by
such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide.
Explanation 1.—A person who causes
bodily injury to another who is labouring under
a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and
thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.—Where death is caused by
bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily
injury shall be deemed to have caused the death,
although by resorting to proper remedies and
skilful treatment the death might have been
prevented.
Explanation 3.—The causing of the death
of a child in the mother's womb is not homicide.
But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause
the death of a living child, if any part of that
child has been brought forth, though the child
may not have breathed or been completely
born."
(illustrations are omitted)
16.Section 299 of IPC, has three limbs. The first limb speaks about
the intention of causing death. The second limb speaks about the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The
third limb speaks about the knowledge of the offender that his act is
likely to cause death. If the act of the offender falls in any one of the
three limbs, then it will amount to culpable homicide.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
17.Section 300 of IPC, deals with murder, which reads as follows:
"300. Murder. —Except in the cases
hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is
murder, if the act by which the death is caused is
done with the intention of causing death, or—
2ndly.—If it is done with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as the offender knows
to be likely to cause the death of the person to
whom the harm is caused, or—
3rdly.—If it is done with the intention of
causing bodily injury to any person and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
or—
4thly.—If the person committing the act
knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death, or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury
as aforesaid.
(illustrations are omitted)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is
not murder.—Culpable homicide is not murder if
the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-
control by grave and sudden provocation, causes
the death of the person who gave the provocation
or causes the death of any other person by
mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the
following provisos:—
First.—That the provocation is not sought
or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an
excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.—That the provocation is not
given by anything done in obedience to the law,
or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the
powers of such public servant.
Thirdly.—That the provocation is not given
by anything done in the lawful exercise of the
right of private defence.
Explanation.—Whether the provocation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
was grave and sudden enough to prevent the
offence from amounting to murder is a question of
fact.
Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not
murder if the offender in the exercise in good
faith of the right of private defence of person or
property, exceeds the power given to him by law
and causes the death of the person against whom
he is exercising such right of defence without
premeditation, and without any intention of doing
more harm than is necessary for the purpose of
such defence.
Exception 3.—Culpable homicide is not
murder if the offender, being a public servant or
aiding a public servant acting for the
advancement of public justice, exceeds the
powers given to him by law, and causes death by
doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to
be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of
his duty as such public servant and without ill-
will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not
murder if it is committed without premeditation in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel and without the offender's having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner.
Explanation.—It is immaterial in such
cases which party offers the provocation or
commits the first assault.
Exception 5.—Culpable homicide is not
murder when the person whose death is caused,
being above the age of eighteen years, suffers
death or takes the risk of death with his own
consent."
18.Section 300 IPC, contains four limbs.
(i) The first limb deals with the intention of causing death.
(ii) The second limb deals with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the
person to whom the harm is caused.
(iii) The third limb deals with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
(iv) The fourth limb deals with the knowledge that the act is so
imminently dangerous that, it must in all probability cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above.
19.Section 300 IPC also contains five exceptions. A culpable
homicide would amount to murder, if the act of the accused falls in any
one of the four limbs of Section 300 IPC and it does not falls in any of
the general exceptions to Section 300 IPC. If the act of the accused falls
in any one of the four limbs of Section 300 IPC and it falls in any one of
the general exceptions contained in Section 300 IPC then the act of the
accused will amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. If
the act of the accused falls under the category of murder, he will be
punished under Section 302 IPC and if the act of the accused amounts to
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, then he will be punished
under Section 304 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
20.Let us now examine the circumstances under which, the act of
the accused will amount to murder or culpable homicide not amounting
to murder, which incurs lesser punishment.
21.The first limb of Section 299 IPC namely intention to cause
death corresponds to first limb of Section 300 IPC, which speaks about
intention to cause death. To find out whether the accused has intention to
cause death of a person, Court can infer from various circumstance like
the motive, gravity of injuries, weapon used by the accused for
committing the act etc., Based on the available evidence, if the Court
comes to the conclusion that the accused has the intention to cause death
of the deceased, then it amounts to murder and the accused is liable to be
punished under Section 302 IPC.
22.The second limb of Section 299 IPC, deals with the intention of
the accused to cause such bodily injuries as is likely to cause death,
corresponds to the second and third limb of Section 300 IPC. These
limbs deals with the intention of the accused to cause bodily injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
23.The second limb of Section 300 IPC, speaks about the intention
of causing such a bodily injury with a knowledge that, the particular
victim has a specific health issue and that any injury caused to him is
likely to cause death of the person, however that injury may not likely to
cause the death of a person having ordinary health condition. If the
accused caused any injury fully aware of the fact that the deceased is
having a peculiar health issue, and causing such injury is likely to cause
his death, and is resulted into death, then his act amounts to murder.
24.The third limb of Section 300 IPC, speaks about the intention of
the accused to cause bodily injury and the intended injury to be inflicted
is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
25.The fine distinction between the second limb of Section 299
IPC and the third limb of Section 300 IPC is that the second limb of
Section 299 IPC deals with injury likely to cause death, whereas the third
limb of Section 300 IPC speaks that the intended injury to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The third limb
of Section 300 IPC, does not speak about the resulted injury but it only
speaks about the injury intended to be inflicted by the accused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
26.To bring the act of the accused under the third limb of Section
300 IPC, it should be proved that the injury inflicted is sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature, and in addition to that the injury
found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted by the
accused.
27.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Virsa Singh Vs. State of Punjab
reported in AIR 1956 SC 465 has held in para 10 has follows:
"10. Once that is found, the enquiry shifts
to the next clause-
"and the bodily injury intended to
be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause
death."
The first part of this is descriptive of the
earlier part of the section, namely, the infliction
of bodily injury with the intention to inflict it, that
is to say, if the circumstances justify an inference
that a man's intention was only to inflict a blow
on the lower part of the leg, or some lesser blow,
and it can be shown that the blow landed in the
region of the heart by accident, then, though all
injury to the heart is shown to be present, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
intention to inflict ail injury in that region, or of
that nature, is not proved. In that case, the first
part of the clause does not come into play. But
once it is proved that there was an intention to
inflict the injury that is found to be present, then
the earlier part of the clause we are now
examining
" and the bodily injury intended to
be inflicted "
is merely descriptive. All it means is that it is not
enough to prove that the injury found to be
present is sufficient to cause death in the
ordinary course of nature; it must in addition be
shown that the injury is of the kind that falls
within the earlier clause, namely, that the injury
found to be present was the injury that was
intended to be inflicted. Whether it was sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is
a matter of inference or deduction from the
proved facts about the nature of the injury and
has nothing to do with the question of intention."
28.In short, to bring the act under third limb of Section 300 IPC,
the prosecution must establish that a bodily injury is present, the nature
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
of injury sustained by the deceased and it must be proved that there was
an intention to cause that particular bodily injury and it is not intentional
or some other kind of injury was intended. Finally, the injury caused by
the accused is sufficient to cause death of a person in the ordinary course
of nature. Once the above said four elements are established by the
prosecution, the offence is murder, as it will fall under third limb of
Section 300.
29.The third limb of Section 299 (b) IPC corresponds to the fourth
limb of Section 300 IPC. These provisions speak about the knowledge of
the accused. Both the provisions speaks about the knowledge and also
the bodily injury which is likely to cause death. However the distinction
between both the limbs is the degree of knowledge and also the imminent
dangerous nature of the act that in all probability cause death or such
bodily injury caused by the accused is likely to cause death without any
excuse of incurring the risk of causing death or such injury.
30.To bring the act of the accused under the fourth limb of Section
300 IPC, it should be established that the accused is aware of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
consequences of his act and the consequence is either imminently
dangerous to life or bodily injury which is likely to cause death. The
degree of knowledge makes the difference between the third limb of
Section 299 IPC and the fourth limb of Section 300 IPC. Further to bring
the act under the fourth limb of Section 300 IPC, it should be proved that
it is not the knowledge of mere possibility, but the accused had
knowledge that the act is imminently dangerous and that in all
probability the act is likely to cause death.
31.If the prosecution bring the act of the accused within the ambit
of any one of the four limbs of Section 300 IPC, the act of the accused
will be culpable homicide amounting to murder. However, if the act of
the accused, falls within the definition of murder and it falls within any
one of the five exceptions enumerated under Section 300 IPC, the
offence would be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which is
punishable under Section 304 IPC.
32.Section 304 IPC contains two parts which reads as follows:
"304. Punishment for culpable homicide
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
not amounting to murder.—Whoever commits
culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
shall be punished with 1 [imprisonment for life],
or imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or of causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death;
or with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, or with
fine, or with both, if the act is done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but
without any intention to cause death, or to cause
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death."
33.The first part provides for punishment for culpable homicide
not amounting to murder, if the act of the accused is done with the
intention of causing death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death. The intention of the accused is essential requirement under the
first part of Section 304 IPC. The second part deals with the knowledge
of the accused. If the accused has knowledge that his act is likely to
cause death but without any intention to cause death or to cause such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
34.To put it more clearly, if it is proved that the act of the accused
is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and it falls either under
the first or second limb of Section 299 IPC, then the accused is liable to
be punished under Section 304(i) of IPC. If the act of the accused is
proved as culpable homicide not amounting to murder and falls within
the ambit, third limb of Section 299 IPC, the accused is liable to be
punished under Section 304(ii) of IPC. Likewise, if the act of the
accused falls within first, second or third limb of Section 300 IPC and if
it falls under any one of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300 IPC,
then the act of the accused is only culpable homicide not amounting to
murder and the accused is liable to be punished under Section 304(i)
IPC. If the act of the accused falls within the fourth limb of Section 300
IPC and if it falls under any one of the exceptions enumerated in Section
300 IPC, it is punishable under Section 304(ii) IPC. [Vide Ganesan v.
State of T.N., 2012-2- L.W. (Crl) 733]
35.Keeping the above principles in mind, let us now consider the
act of the accused. From the available evidence, it is seen that both the
accused and the deceased were close friends and there is no serious
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
motive attributed against the appellant/accused. At the time of
occurrence, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased,
during that quarrel, the accused has attacked the deceased. From the
evidence, it is clear that the appellant/accused attacked the deceased with
intention to cause bodily injury, which is sufficient to cause death of the
deceased in the ordinary course of nature. Hence, the act of the accused
will fall under the third limb of Section 300 IPC. However, the accused
without any premeditation, attacked the deceased, in a sudden fight, out
of sudden quarrel and without taking any undue advantage, he has
attacked the deceased with wooden log and stone available in the scene
of occurrence. In the said circumstances, the act of the deceased will fall
under the fourth exception to Section 300 IPC. Hence, the appellant is
liable to be punished under Section 304(i) IPC not under Section 300
IPC.
36.Sofaras the quantum of sentence is concerned, the accused is an
young man, he has a chance to reform himself, the occurrence has taken
place in the heat of passion on a sudden quarrel between the accused and
the deceased and the accused has attacked the deceased with the weapon
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
available in the scene of occurrence, and there is no serious motive
attributed against him. Considering the above mitigating as well as the
aggravating circumstances, we are of the considered view that sentencing
the appellant to undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment will meet the
ends of justice.
37.In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed, and the
conviction under Section 302 IPC, is set aside, instead, the appellant is
convicted under Section 304(i) IPC, and sentenced to undergo 7 years
rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to
undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. The period of sentence
already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be set off under Section
428 Cr.P.C.
[V.B.D.,J.] & [J.N.B.,J.]
08.09.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Note :
In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order
may be utilized for official purposes, but,
ensuring that the copy of the order that is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
presented is the correct copy, shall be the
responsibility of the advocate / litigant
concerned.
To
1)The Inspector of Police,
Town Police Station,
Pudukkottai,
Pudukkottai District.
(In Crime No.380 of 2013)
2)The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
V.BHARATHIDASAN, J.
and
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala
JUDGMENT MADE IN
CRL.A(MD)No.310 of 2018
DATED : 08.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
