Madras High Court
Manikandan vs / on 6 March, 2023
Crl.A.No.236 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.03.2023
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Crl.A.No.236 of 2020
1. Manikandan,
2. Kumar,
3. Durairaj, ... Appellants/Accused (A1 to A3)
/versus/
State By,
Inspector of Police,
Meensuriti Division,
Ariyalur District.
(Crime No.54 of 2019). ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C., pleased to set
aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Learned Additional District &
Sessions Judge, Ariyalur, in S.C.No.108 of 2019 by judgment dated 06.03.2020
and acquit the appellants herein from the charges.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Balu,
For Respondent : Mr.R.Kishore Kumar,
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
Page No.1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.236 of 2020
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal is filed by the three accused persons who were
found guilty and convicted for the offence under Section 304(ii) of I.P.C., the trial
Court has sentenced them to undergo 5 years R.I and to pay fine of Rs.25,000/-
each, in default to undergo 6 months S.I.
2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 02.04.2019, at about 20.00
hours, Jeevagan (P.W.2) and Senthil Murugan (P.W.3) while coming in their two
wheeler dashed the two wheeler of 1 st accused in which 2nd accused was sitting in
the pillion. In this accident, the vehicle of the 1st accused got damaged. After this
occurrence, Jeevagan (P.W.2) came back to his home. By 21.00 hours, A1 to A3
came to the house of Jeevagan (P.W.2) and called him to come out. When the
father of P.W.2 the deceased came out and tried to pacify the accused persons,
they abused him with filthy language and kicked him repeatedly causing internal
injury to the lungs. The deceased, who developed chest pain got admitted in the
hospital on the next day but died due to clotting of blood at hilar region of the
lungs. On intimation from the wife of the deceased, the police registered the case
Page No.2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.236 of 2020
in Crime No.54 of 2019 for the offences under Section 294(b), 323 and 302 of
I.P.C.
3. On completion of investigation, final report was filed in
P.R.C.No.20 of 2019 before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Jayankondam and
thereafter, case was committed to Additional District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur
and taken on file in S.C.No.108 of 2019. The Learned Appellate Judge framed
charges against the accused persons for the offences under Section 294 of I.P.C for
using filthy language, Section 323 of I.P.C for causing hurt and Section 302 of
I.P.C for causing death.
4. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses
(P.W.1 to P.W.19), marked 17 Exhibits (Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17) and 3 material objects
(M.O.1 to M.O.3).
5. The trial Court, after considering the fact that the accused persons
have gone to the house of the deceased called him out from the house, picked
Page No.3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.236 of 2020
quarrel and attacked him causing internal injury which has led to his death on the
next day. The evidences of P.W.1 to P.W.3 who are wife, son and brother-in-law
of the deceased, who had witnessed the occurrence and the post-mortem report
(Ex.P.11) which indicates that internal injury caused at the joint of hilar region
causing blood clot and stoppage of respiration held that, the prosecution has
proved that the accused persons gone to the house of the deceased, abused him
with filthy language and kicked him over the body causing hurt and one of the
injury caused internal damage to the lungs leading to blood clot. The death of the
deceased amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder and offence
punishable under Section 304(ii) of I.P.C.
6. The Learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that it
is the continuation of earlier incident which look place in the road where P.W.1
and P.W.3 while travelling in their two wheeler hit the two wheeler of A1 and
caused damage to the vehicle. For claiming compensation for the damage caused,
the accused persons went to the house of P.W.1 where quarrel picked up leading to
exchange of blows. The accused never had intention to cause death or knowledge
Page No.4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.236 of 2020
that the injury will cause death. Therefore, the trial Court failed to consider that it
is an act of sudden provocation in a fit of anger during the sudden quarrel and not
done with intention to cause death or knowledge to cause death. Hence, conviction
under Section 304(ii) of I.P.C is erroneous.
7. Per contra, the Learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing
for the respondent, on going through the evidence and the post-mortem report
marked as Ex.P.11 and the opinion of Doctor (P.W.12) as explained by P.W.17
submitted that it is clear case of culpable homicide caused with knowledge and
therefore, finding of the trial Court and conviction has to be sustained. Further, the
evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3, who are witnesses to the occurrence had clearly
proved that it is the accused persons gone to the house of the deceased called him
out from the house and picked quarrel. Therefore, it cannot be considered as an
uninvited quarrel to hit it under exception to murder. Further, the injury is very
fatal and seat of injury is also to be taken note of. These accused persons who are
around 25 years old attacked a person at around 47 years old, who has nothing to
do with the earlier incident which alleged to have took place in the road. Since
Page No.5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.236 of 2020
there was no external injury over the body, the rustic villagers had not taken
medical treatment immediately. No doubt, if the injured had taken the treatment
immediately, his life would have been saved but that can be only a mitigating
circumstances while dealing the accused persons regarding sentence and nothing
more.
8. Taking note of the other fact that the prosecution has registered the
case immediately, taken up the investigation and collected the evidence which
clearly indicates that the overt act of these three accused persons who have joint
together and attacked the deceased are liable for conviction.
9. As far as for the offence under Section 304(ii) of I.P.C., is
concerned, the blood clot injury which has caused to the deceased not been
attributed to any one of the accused individually. These three accused persons
have shared the common object to cause hurt to the deceased and in furtherance of
common intention, they jointly attacked the deceased. The trial Court has rightly
held that their intention was not to cause death, however, the seat of injury and the
Page No.6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.236 of 2020
manner in which the deceased was attacked and his age leads to an inference they
had knowledge that the injury will likely to cause death.
10. Therefore, this Court finds no error in convicting the accused
persons for the offence under Section 304(ii) of I.P.C. However, taking note of
their age of, this Court is of the view that the period of sentence reduced from five
years R.I to four years R.I with fine of Rs.25,000/- each, in default to undergo 6
months S.I.
11. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The period
of sentence already undergone shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. The
trial Court shall secure the accused/appellants and commit him to prison to
undergo the remaining period of sentence.
06.03.2023
Index :Yes/No.
Internet :Yes/No.
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
bsm
Page No.7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A.No.236 of 2020
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
bsm
To:-
1. The Learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ariyalur
2. The Inspector of Police, Meensuriti Division, Ariyalur District.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Crl.A.No.236 of 2020
06.03.2023
Page No.8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
