Madras High Court
Satheeswaran @ Satheesh vs State Represent Through The on 5 January, 2023
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 05.01.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH
AND
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
Satheeswaran @ Satheesh : Appellant
Vs.
State represent through the
Inspector of Police
Allinagaram Police Station,
Theni District.
(Crime No.194 of 2015) : Respondent
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 16.11.2016 in S.C.No.117
of 2015, on the file of the Principal District Sessions Judge, Theni.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Ravi
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
JUDGMENT
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and order dated
16.11.2016 in S.C.No.117 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District
Sessions Judge, Theni. By the said Judgment, the trial Court convicted and
sentenced the appellant/accused to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a
fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six
months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said
conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up in this Criminal Appeal.
2.The prosecution story runs thus:
2.1. This is a case of matricide, the appellant being the son of the
deceased Veerammal. The appellant is said to be addicted to liquor and was
a parasite on his mother for money. On 10.04.2015 around 07.00 p.m., the
appellant is said to have demanded money from his mother and when she
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
refused, he is said to have attacked her with a handle of wooden shovel
[M.O.1].
2.2. Resulting, thereafter, the appellant is said to have informed his
sister Saranya [P.W.1] that their mother has slipped and fallen and hence,
unconscious; on this information Saranya [P.W.1] went along with her
husband to the house of the appellant, found her mother lying on the floor,
called an ambulance and carried her out to the Government Hospital, Theni,
where, she was treated by Dr.Arunkumar [P.W.10] vide copy of the Accident
Register [Ex.P.9].
2.3. In Ex.P9, it is stated as follows:-
“alleged H/O accidental fall on 07.00 p.m., on 10.04.2015.”
The deceased was referred for better treatment to the Government Rajaji
Hospital, Madurai. Therefore, Saranya [P.W.1] carried her to Madurai and
admitted her in the Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai at 01.10 a.m., on
11.04.2015. However, on the same day, around 11.00 a.m., the deceased
was discharged against the medical advice and was taken to a private
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
hospital by Saranya [P.W.1]. But unfortunately, en route, the deceased died.
Therefore, [P.W.1] carried the body of the deceased to her maternal aunt
Kaniammal's house. There, Saranya [P.W.1], another maternal aunt
Chellammal [P.W.2] and her husband Pandian [P.W.3] came for mourning
and stated that the appellant had attacked the deceased, caused her death.
This arose, suspicion in the mind of Saranya [PW.1] and therefore, she gave
a written complaint Ex.P1, based on which, Janarthanan [P.W.12], the Sub-
Inspector of Police, Allinagaram Police Station registered a case in Cr.No.
194 of 2015 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC on 11.04.2015 at
14.00 hours against the appellant and prepared the printed FIR [Ex.P-11],
which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on the same day at 04.00 p.m.,
as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.
2.4. Investigation of the case was taken over by Sugumaran [P.W.13],
who went to the place of occurrence, viz., house of the deceased and
prepared the observation mahazar [Ex.P.5]. At the place of occurrence, the
Investigating Officer noticed that the television screen in the house was
broken and therefore, he seized the pieces under the cover of Mahazar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
[Ex.P6] and the same were marked as M.O.2. The Investigating Officer also
prepared a rough sketch [Exs.P12 & P13). Thereafter, the investigating
officer went to the mortuary and conducted inquest over the body of the
deceased and the inquest report has been marked as Ex.P14. Thereafter, the
body was sent for autopsy to the Government Hospital, Theni, where,
Dr.K.Arunkumar [P.W.9] S/o.Kannan performed autopsy on the body of the
deceased and issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P.7], wherein, he has
noted two external injuries corresponding to which he has noted two
internal injuries, apart from which, he has also noted three internal injuries
in the head region. After receipt of the serology report, Dr.Arunkumar
[P.W.-9] has opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to
effects of head injuries.
2.5. The appellant was arrested by the Investigating Officer on
12.04.2015 at 11.00 a.m., and based on the admissible portion of his
confession, the shovel [M.O.1] allegedly used in the attack, was recovered
under the cover of mahazar [Ex.P.3].
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
2.6. After examining various witnesses and collecting reports of the
experts, the Investigating Officer completed the investigation and filed a
final report in PRC No.28/2015 in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate,
Theni, for the offence under Section 302 IPC against the appellant.
3. On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207
Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of
Principal District Sessions, Theni, in SC No.117/2015, for trial.
4. The trial Court framed charges under Section 302 IPC against the
appellant and when questioned, the appellant pleaded not guilty.
5. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and
marked 14 exhibits and 2 Material Objects. When the appellant was
questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., about the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. No witness was
examined from the side of the appellant nor any document marked.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
6. However, the trial Court examined Dr.G.A.Viswanathan as Court
Witness and marked Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. The trial Court has embarked on
this venture in order to satisfy itself as to whether the appellant which
defending himself in the trial, had taken the plea that he was not mentally
sound. After satisfying itself from the evidence of C.W.1 that the appellant
was capable of defending himself, the trial Court appears to have proceeded
further.
7. After considering the evidence on record and on hearing either
side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 16.11.2016, in S.C.No.
117/2015, has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in the
opening paragraph.
8. Aggrieved by the above, the present appeal has been filed with a
delay of 1405 days which was condoned by this Court in Crl.M.P(MD)No.
7333 of 2020 vide order dated 21.01.2021 and the appeal is taken up for
hearing.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
9. Heard Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandiyan, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr.S.Ravi, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the
respondent.
10. The prosecution case mainly rests on the eyewitness account of
Saranya [P.W.1], Chellammal [P.W.2] and Pandiyan [P.W.3]. Admittedly,
Saranya [P.W.1], is the younger sister of the appellant, Chellammal [P.W.2],
is the senior maternal aunt of the appellant and Pandiyan [P.W.3], is the
husband of Chellammal [P.W.2]. Chellammal [P.W.2] and Pandiyan [P.W.3]
in their examination in chief, have stated that on 10.04.2015 around 07.00
p.m., the appellant was quarreling with his mother and in that quarrel, he
damaged the television screen in the house and thereafter, attacked his
mother with the wooden handle of the shovel [M.O.1]. However, in the
cross-examination of these witnesses, which was done on the very same day,
they have stated that they were not in the place of occurrence and came to
the place of occurrence only later.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
11. As regards Saranya [P.W.1] she has stated that while she was in
their house, the appellant called her and told her that their mother has
slipped and fallen and therefore, she rushed to her natal home along with
her husband, took her mother to various hospitals and ultimately, brought
the dead body to Kanniammal's house on the next day. She also stated that
she came to know that the appellant has assaulted her mother, but she is not
an eye witness to the occurrence.
12. However, all these witnesses have stated that the appellant was
suffering from some mental illness and he was also present in the house
when they came there.
13. Strangely, except the statement of these witnesses that the
appellant was suffering from some mental illness, there is no material placed
before the trial Court to show the nature of mental illeness that the appellant
was suffering, so as to bring this case within the exception under Section 84
of IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
14. As regards the exercise undertaken by the trial Court, it was only
to ensure that the appellant was capable of defending himself. Therefore,
we are unable to extend the benefit of Section 84 of IPC. As such, an
exception has to be pleaded and proved as required under Section 105 of the
Indian Evidence Act. However, we find that, Dr. G.M.Niban [P.W.11], in
his evidence, has stated that had the treatment been continued at the
Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, the patient would have survived and
that he died only because of the relatives, who were in a hurry to discharge
her against the medical advice.
15. That apart, we find from the postmortem certificate that the
injuries on the deceased appear to have been caused with the blunt portion
of the handle of shovel. We do not find any cut injury or laceration.
Chellammal [P.W.2] and Pandiyan [P.W.3] further stated that they heard the
appellant quarreling with his mother in and around that time.
16. Thus, from the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are
able to see that the appellant was quarreling with his mother and he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
broken television in a fret of quarrel and appears to have assaulted the
deceased, after which he became panic and called his sister for help. He did
not run away from the scene of occurrence and instead, remained there.
17. In such view of the matter, the criminal appeal is partly allowed
and the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside and
instead, he is convicted under Section 304 (II) IPC and sentenced to
undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in
default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The period of
sentence already undergone by the accused/appellant is ordered to be set off
under Section 428 Cr.P.C.
[P.N.P., J.] & [G.J., J.]
NCC : Yes/No 05.01.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes
am
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl. A(MD)No.52 of 2021
To
1.The Principal District Sessions Judge,
Theni.
2.The Inspector of Police
Allinagaram Police Station,
Theni District.
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.52 of 2021
P.N.PRAKASH, J
AND
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J
AM
Judgment made in
Crl.A.(MD)No.52 of 2021
05.01.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
