Madras High Court
Sundar vs State Rep. By on 26 June, 2025
Crl.A(MD)No.105 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 26.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
Crl.A(MD)No.105 of 2017
1.Sundar
2.Poomayil ... Appellants/Accused 1 &2
Vs.
State rep. by
The Inspector of Police,
C-2, Subramaniyapuram Police Station,
Madurai Town
(In Crime No.312 of 2011) ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal
Procedure Code, to set aide the judgment made in S.C.No.383 of 2013
dated 28.02.2017 on the file of the 1st Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Madurai.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Vakeeswaran
For Respondent : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran
Government Advocate (Crl.side)
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.105 of 2017
JUDGMENT
This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the accused 1 and 2 against
the judgment dated 28.02.2017 passed by the learned I Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C.No.383 of 2013.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) P.W.1 is the defacto complainant. P.W.2 is the brother-in-law
of P.W.1. P.W.2 was constructing a new house at Palanganatham,
Madurai. During construction, the first accused used to send the waste
water from the second accused father's house through the house site of
P.W.2. Due to this, there was difference of opinion between the parties.
Due to this, on 02.03.2011 at about 10 a.m. while construction work was
taking place in the house of P.W.2 at his place, the first accused came
there and at that time P.W.1 questioned as to why the first accused was
releasing waste water through P.W.2's house, for which the first accused
abused P.W.1 in filthy language. At that time, the second accused came
there and induced the first accused to kill the complainant PW.1. By
saying so, the second accused threw the aruval on the leg of P.W.1, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
therefore she sustained simple injury on the right fore leg. At that time
the deceased Ilavarasan came to that spot. On his arrival, the first
accused with an intention to murder him, assaulted on Ilavarasan's head
with wooden log. He further attacked P.W.2 with wooden log and caused
simple injuries. When other people attempted to pacify them, the accused
1 and 2 criminally intimidated that they would not leave them without
killing and left the scene of occurrence. Initially the said Ilavarasan
admitted in hospital for treatment. However, he died on 03.03.2011.
(ii)After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed
against the accused for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302, 323 and
324 IPC.
(iii)The Judicial Magistrate No.4. Madurai, has taken cognizance
of the case in P.R.C.No.40 of 2011. On completion of formalities, the
case was committed to the court of the Principal District Judge, Madurai
under Section 209 Cr.P.C. Thereafter, this case was made over by the
Principal District Court, Madurai, to the Court of I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Madurai, for disposal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
(iv) On appearance of the accused 1 and 2 and their counsel, and
after hearing both sides, on being satisfied that prima facie reasons exist
for framing charges, charges were framed against the accused. On
questioning upon the charges, the accused 1 and 2 pleaded not guilty and
therefore proceedings were issued for commencement of trial.
(v) In order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined 18
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W. 18 and marked 32 documents as Ex.P1 to
Ex.P32 and 5 materials were marked as M.O.1 to M.O.5. On the side of
the accused, one witness was examined as D.W.1 and two documents
were marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.
(vi) On completion of the prosecution evidence, when the accused
were questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
with respect to the incriminating circumstances appearing in evidence
against them, they denied their complicity in the crimes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
(vii) Having considered the oral and documentary evidence, the
Sessions Court found the first accused guilty for the offence under
Sections 294(b), 323, 304(1) IPC and the second accused guilty for the
offence u/s 324 IPC and the accused are convicted and sentenced to
undergo imprisonment as follows:
1st Accused 2nd Accused
Section 294(b) – to undergo 3 Section 324 IPC – to undergo one
months rigorous imprisonment year rigorous imprisonment and to
pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default
to undergo 2 months rigorous
imprisonment
Section 323 IPC – to undergo 1 --
year rigorous imprisonment and to
pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to
undergo 2 months rigorous
imprisonment
Section 304 (1) IPC – to undergo --
10 years rigorous imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/- in
default to undergo one year
rigorous imprisonment
(viii) Aggrieved over that, the accused 1 and 2 have filed the
present appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
3. The learned counsel for the appellants has made the following
submissions:
i) The trial Judge has not properly appreciated the motive
attributed against the accused despite it is unbelievable.
ii) There is contradiction in mentioning the place of occurrence by
the prosecution witnesses.
iii) P.W.1 to P.W.3 are interested witnesses and close relatives.
Their evidence has been completely relied by the trial court which is not
correct.
iv)The earliest information which was obtained by P.W.12, the
Sub-Inspector of Police from the deceased Ilavarasan has been
suppressed by the prosecution.
v) The second FIR has been registered at 8.00 p.m in the night
hours and that weakness on the case of the prosecution was omitted to be
noticed by the trial Judge. The evidence of arrest, confession and
recovery of weapon is not reliable because P.W.8 and P.W.9, who signed
in the mahazar, have turned hostile.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
vi)Even though it is stated in the First Information Report that
P.W.1 was attacked by 'aruval', the police have recovered only
'vangaruval'.
vii) When the trial Judge has arrived at the conclusion that there is
no premeditative motive for convicting the appellant for the alleged
occurrence, the trial Judge ought to have acquitted the accused.
4. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) submitted that the
judgment of conviction calls for no interference. The deceased was
mercilessly assaulted by the accused and death occurred as a cumulative
nature of the head injuries attributed by the first accused and merely
because the witnesses are the close relatives will not make their evidence
doubtful or unacceptable. A conjoint reading of the evidence of P.W.1 to
P.W.3 would show that they were present in the place of occurrence. He
prayed for dismissal of this appeal.
5. I gave my anxious consideration to the submissions made on
either side and carefully perused the materials available on record.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
6. The houses of the mother of the deceased (P.W.1) and her
brother in law (P.W.2) were situated nearby. The accused 1 and 2 are the
mother and son and their house is situated on the southern side of P.W.2's
house. As the second accused intended to buy the house of P.W.2, there
was an enmity between the accused and P.W.2. As P.W.2 started to
construct a house on his site, the first accused was in the habit of causing
troubles to him by releasing the waste water through ''Veeramudayan
Vaikal'' through the house site of P.W.2.
7. On 02.03.2011 at about 10.00 a.m, P.W.2 along with P.W.1 and
others were removing water from the land. At that time, the first accused
came there and on seeing them, P.W.1 asked him why was he repeatedly
releasing the waste water on his house site. Immediately, the first accused
abused her in filthy language and the second accused, who is mother of
the first accused joined him. The second accused asked the first accused
to kill P.W.1 and by saying so, the second accused threw ''vangaruval''
and due to that P.W.1 sustained injuries on the right fore leg. The
deceased Ilavarasan came to the rescue of his mother P.W.1. At that time,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
the first accused with wooden log hit the deceased in a forcible manner
and Ilavarasan collapsed on the spot.
8. P.W.2 went near Ilavarasan and the first accused hit him also
with the wooden log and caused injuries. On hearing the noise, people
gathered and spotted the accused 1 and 2. Even P.W.1 and P.W.2 while
going away, the accused intimidated them. P.W.1, P.W.2 and along with
Ilavarasan were taken to Meenakshi Mission Hospital for treatment on
03.03.2011. But the deceased succumbed to his injuries.
9. P.W.1 and 2 are not only injured witnesses but also eye
witnesses. They have deposed in the evidence about what had happened
in the alleged day of occurrence. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are
cogent and consistent. The evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 are also
corroborated. Both P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated that the first accused
used to pass waste water on the site of P.W.2's house. On the date of
occurrence also, P.W.2 along with his relative P.W.1, her son and others
tried to remove the water from his site. When the illegal act of the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
accused was questioned by P.W.1, the second accused also joined and
quarreled. During that course of quarrel, she threw the 'vangaruval' on
P.W.1 and P.W.1 has also stated in her evidence that the deceased came to
her rescue and he was also beaten up by the first accused with wooden
log.
10. The above material aspect has also been spoken by P.W.2 in his
evidence in a clear manner. The evidence of P.W.2 about events that had
taken place before the occurrence, during the occurrence and after the
occurrence are cogent and consistent and it does not suffer from any
material contradictions. Even though the learned counsel for the
appellant submitted that there are certain contradictions in the evidence
of P.W.1 and P.W.2, a combined reading of their evidence does not leave
any doubt and it is right for the trial court to ignore the minor
contradictions and rely on their evidence.
11. In fact, the occurrence was witnessed by other eye witnesses
P.W.3 and P.W.4 also. P.W.3 was present in the place of occurrence when
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
P.W.1 and P.W.2 were working there to remove water from the house site
of P.W.2.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is
no possibility to let out water from ''veeramudayan canal'' to P.W.2's
house. When P.W.7 was cross-examined on the physical features and the
course of the water flow, he asserted that the distance between the place
of occurrence and the opening point of ''veeramudayan vaikal'' is just ½
km and the wall of the said vaikal is three feets away above the floor and
six feet below the floor and hence, water from the said canal can be let to
P.W.2's house. P.W.2 have also asserted the same in his evidence, hence,
motive for the occurrence as stated by the prosecution has been accepted
by the trial court only after appreciating its possibility and reliability of
the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2.
13. P.W.3, eye witness, is a Mason, who was working at the house
site of P.W.2 and he was also helping to remove the water along with
P.W.1 and P.W.2. Hence, the presence of P.W.3 in the place of occurrence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
is natural and possible and his evidence also corroborates the evidence of
P.W.1 and P.W.2 in all material aspects.
14. P.W.4, is a chance witness. On the date occurrence, he had also
occasioned to witness the occurrence and in his evidence, he supported
the case of the prosecution. The combined reading of the evidence of
P.W.4 in all probabilities and possibilities would clearly present the case
of the prosecution only in the manner how it was alleged by the
prosecution.
15. P.W.5, who is the father of the deceased, the husband of P.W.1
also stated about the previous motive with regard to letting the water and
his evidence also strengthened the case of the prosecution.
16. Even though the learned counsel for the appellants invited the
attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.7 in respect of physical
features of ''veeramudayan canal'' especially to his evidence that the wall
of canal is 3 feet above the ground, his evidence alone is not sufficient to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
reject the possibility of water from ''veeramudayan vaikal'' flowing in the
house site of P.W.2. It is because of the fact that P.W.1 and P.W.2 in their
cross-examination clearly stated thus:
''It is not correct to state that the distance between the
opening point of ''veeramudayan vaikal'' and P.W.2's house site
is half parlong and the opening point of ''veeramudayan vaikal''
is near to P.W.2's house site''
17. It is also submitted that in the complaint (Ex.P.1), it is stated
that the weapon used during the occurrence was 'aruval'. But the
Investigating Officer had recovered 'vangaruval'. Ex.P.1 is the complaint
given by P.W.1 while she was in the hospital. P.W.1 was taking treatment
as in-patient as she was injured due to the occurrence and her son was in
the critical condition. In such mental state, P.W.1 cannot be expected to
be conscious to indicate the weapon whether it has to be mentioned as
'aruval' or 'vangaruval'. People used to mention 'aruval' for some types of
weapons which have sharp edge. In the evidence of P.W.1 she has very
much clearly stated about the weapon used by saying that it was
'vangaruval' and the evidence has been corroborated by other witnesses.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
In the evidence of P.W.2 to P.W.4 also there is no confusion and
contradiction in the weapon alleged to have been used for the occurrence
and the weapon recovered by the police.
18. Even though the arrest and recovery witnesses have turned
hostile, there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the Investigating
Officer who stated in all clear terms how arrest and recovery of
vangaruval was made. The evidence of the Investigating Officer is
corroborated with the evidence of the injured and eye witnesses. Hence,
the trial court is right in accepting the evidence of the Investigating
Officer on this aspect. The accused were well known to the injured and
hence their identity is not an issue.
19. Doctor- P.W.17, who has done post-mortem and gave post-
mortem certificate, opined that the deceased would appear to have died
of head injury.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
20. The another Doctor-P.W.16, has also stated that some injuries
found in the body of the deceased when he was brought to the hospital
along with P.W.2 and through the scan report, it was found that in the
left side of brain of the deceased, there was heavy blood leakage. During
cross-examination, P.W.16 stated that he noticed the two lacerated
injuries on P.W.2 and that those injuries can be inflicted by sharp
weapons.
21. P.W.15, the Doctor who examined P.W.2 and issued wound
certificate stated that P.W.2 had cut injuries on her left eyebrow and there
was cut injury on the right side head parietal region.
22. P.W.12, who is the Sub Inspector of Police, had gone to the
hospital at about 2.15 p.m on 03.03.2011 on getting intimation from the
hospital. He has also stated that the deceased was in Intensive Care Unit
and P.W.1 and P.W.2 were also under treatment. The deceased was not in
a condition to speak and hence, he has got the complaint statement from
P.W.1 and registered the First Information Report after coming to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
Police Station at about 8. p.m on the same day and thereafter sent the
First Information Report to the Court and the Superior.
23. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that,
P.W.12 has already obtained a statement from a male person when he
went and visited the deceased and that was suppressed. When P.W.12
was examined on this aspect, he was suggested that he got the statement
from a male person, who was with the injured person. Though she has
stated 'yes' by inadvertence immediately she stated that he got the
statement from the mother of the deceased namely Panchavarnam. Once
again it was suggested to P.W.12 that he had only obtained statement
from a male person he denied it stoutly. There is no suppression on any
previous statement and the First Information Report which is marked as
Ex.P.9 can be considered as a First Information Report. Hence, there is
no technical flaw seems to be present to paralyze the case of the
prosecution.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
24. The learned trial Judge in all confidence had chosen to rely on
the evidence of the injured witnesses. The testimony of the injured
witnesses can carry a significant weight in this type of cases and just
because of the fact that they are interested and related witnesses, their
evidence cannot be discarded.
25. In this regard, it is essential to refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held in Mohd.Ishaque and others V. State of
West Bengal and others reported in 2013(14) SCC 581. The relevant
portion of the judgment is extracted herein under:
“16. PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 in the present case sustained
serious injuries and their evidence was believed by the court. It is
trite law that the testimony of injured witnesses is entitled to great
weight and it is unlikely that they would spare the real culprit and
implicate an innocent person. Of course, there is no immutable
rule of appreciation of evidence that the evidence of injured
witnesses should be mechanically accepted, it should also be in
consonance with probabilities (Ref: Makan Jivan v. State of
Gujarat-, Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab?, Jangir Singh v. State
of Punjab-).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
17. In this respect, reference may be made to the judgment
of this Court in Jaishree Yadav v. State of U.P.Z wherein this Court
held that whether witnesses are interested persons and whether
they had deposed out of some motive cannot be the sole criterion
for judging credibility of a witness, but the main criterion would be
whether their physical presence at the place of occurrence was
possible and probable''.
26. In the instant case, more sufficient evidence is available from
the statement of the injured witnesses and the other eye witnesses with
regard to the presence of the accused in the place of occurrence. So there
is nothing to improbabilize their presence and so the evidence of the
injured witnesses and the eye witnesses can be accepted without any
doubt.
27. On the same aspect, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in
Brahm Swaroop vs. State of U.P [2011(6) SCC 288] that where a
witness to the occurrence has himself been injured in the incident, the
testimony of such a witness is generally considered to be very reliable, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
he is a witness that comes with an in-built guarantee of his presence at
the scene of the crime and is unlikely to spare his actual assailant(s) in
order to falsely implicate someone.
28. The above logic is applicable to the instant case also. The
mother of the deceased, who got injuries and other injured persons were
already present in the occurrence. They have seen that the first accused
was causing fatal injuries on the head of the deceased with wooden log.
They have also seen that the second accused was throwing vangaruval on
the leg of P.W.1 and when the first accused was attacking P.W.2, with
wooden log.
29. The evidence of P.W.2, Jeyapal, who is also injured and the
brother-in-law of P.W.1 also tallies in all material aspects of evidence of
P.W.1. P.W.3, who is a Mason, had witnessed the occurrence and his
evidence had corroborated in all essential aspects in this case. P.W.4, who
is a chance witness, came to the place of occurrence incidentally had
witnessed the occurrence and had stated not only about the occurrence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
but the instance, which had taken place consequent to the occurrence and
he had given intimation to the Ambulance. So, the holistic appreciation
of the evidences available on the prosecution left no room for doubt and
hence, it is right for the trial court to give due credence to their evidence
to hold the accused guilty.
30. In view of the above narrations, the finding of guilt and
conviction against the first accused for the offences under Section 294(b)
and 323 IPC is confirmed.
31. From the evidence of Doctor and the post-mortem report, it has
been made clear that the deceased had died due to head injury. The post-
mortem report Ex.P.8 was given by P.W.18 and the evidence of P.W.18
confirmed the same. The death was caused due to the head injuries
inflicted by the first accused due to the blow given by him with wooden
log in a sudden provocation during the course of fight between himself,
his mother,P.W.1 and P.W.2. In this background, the finding and
conviction against the first accused for the offence under Section 304(1)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
IPC for having attacked the deceased to death needs elaborate discussion.
32. In order to convict the accused under part-I of Section 304
IPC, the accused ought to have caused death with an intention to cause
death or caused such fatal injury as is likely to cause death. With regard
to provision of Part-II of Section 304 IPC, the accused ought to have
caused death of the deceased by doing the act with knowledge that it is
likely to cause death but without any intention to cause death.
33. Differentiation between Section 304(1) IPC and 304(2) IPC is
as to whether the accused had acted with an intention to cause death or
just with an knowledge his act might cause death. The trial Judge had
convinced that there was no premeditative motive. The occurrence was a
sudden provocation. So, the trial court was convinced not to punish the
accused for murder, but only for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. While convicting the accused under Section 304(1) IPC, there
was no much discussion seem to have been made. The trial Judge had
arrived at a conclusion to punish the accused under Section 304(1) IPC
as the accused had given forcible blow which inflicted a fatal injury on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
the deceased. The trial Judge ought to have applied his mind whether
such an act has been committed with an intention to cause death. If so,
from what evidence or circumstances such an intention is inferred should
be highlighted. Some one can say that he is going to kill other. That alone
is not sufficient to prove the intention but the attack itself should be of
such a nature that intention is patent.
34. In the instant case, the mother of the first accused is the second
accused herein, who had arrived to the place of occurrence and induced
the first accused to attack. In their evidence, P.W.1 and P.W.2 have stated
that the second accused exactly used the word ''kill P.W.1'' only and not
the deceased. The first accused did not attack P.W.1 but he attacked P.W.
2. The deceased rushed near P.W.2/his mother since she had sustained
injuries due to the attack made by the first accused. At that juncture, the
first accused gave a fatal blow with wooden log on the head of the
deceased without even having any intention to cause death of the
deceased. However he could have got the knowledge that if such kind of
fatal blows are given on the head of a human with the wooden log, that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
would cause death. So, the trial Judge ought to have categorized the act
of culpable homicide committed by the first accused under Section 304-
part 2 IPC.
35. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andra Pradesh vs. Rayavarapu
Punnayya and another reported in 1976(4) SC 383. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court has made elaborate discussion as to how the offence
should be considered as murder or culpable homicide not amount to
murder. The essential part of the discussion as found in paragraphs 21 to
25 are extracted herein under:
''21. From the above conspectus, it emerges that whenever a
court is confronted with the question whether the offence is "murder"
or "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", on the facts of a
case, it will be convenient for it to approach the problem in three
stages. The question to be considered at the first stage would be,
whether the accused has done an act by doing which he has caused
the death of another. Proof of such causal connection between the
act of the accused and the death, leads to the second stage for
considering whether that act of the accused amounts to "culpable
homicide" as defined in Section 299. If the answer to this question is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
prima facie found in the affirmative, the stage for considering the
operation of Section 300 of the Penal Code, is reached. This is the
stage at which the court should determine whether the facts proved
by the prosecution bring the case within the ambit of any of the four
clauses of the definition of "murder" contained in Section 300. If the
answer to this question is in the negative the offence would be
"culpable homicide not amounting to murder", punishable under the
first or the second part of Section 304, depending, respectively, on
whether the second or the third clause of Section 299 is applicable. If
this question is found in the positive, but the case comes within any
of the exceptions enumerated in Section 300, the offence would still
be "culpable homicide not amounting to murder", punishable under
the first part of Section 304, of the Penal Code.
22. The above are only broad guidelines and not cast-iron
imperatives. In most cases, their observance will facilitate the task of
the court. But sometimes the facts are so intertwined and the second
and the third stages so telescoped into each other, that it may not be
convenient to give a separate treatment to the matters involved in the
second and third stages.
23. Now let us consider the problem before us in the light of
the above enunciation.
24. It is not disputed that the death of the deceased was
caused by the accused, there being a direct causal connection
between the beating administered by Al and A2 to the deceased and
his death. The accused confined the beating to the legs and arms of
the deceased, and therefore, it can be said that they, perhaps, had no
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
"intention to cause death" within the contemplation of clause (a) of
Section 299 or clause (1) of Section 300. It is nobody's case that the
instant case falls within clause (4) of Section 300. This clause, as
already noticed, is designed for that class of cases where the act of
the offender is not directed against any particular individual but
there is in his act that recklessness and risk of imminent danger,
knowingly and unjustifiably incurred, which is directed against the
man in general, and places the lives of many in jeopardy. Indeed, in
all fairness, Counsel for the appellant has not contended that the
case would fall under clause (4) of Section 300. His sole contention
is that even if the accused had no intention to cause death, the fact
established fully bring the case within the purview of clause (3) of
Section 300 and, as such, the offence committed is murder and
nothing less.
25. As against this Counsel for the respondent submits that
since the accused selected only non-vital parts of the body of the
deceased, for inflicting the injuries, they could not be attributed the
mens rea requisite for bringing the case under clause (3) of Section
300; at the most, it could be said that they had knowledge that the
injuries inflicted by them were likely to cause death, and, as such, the
case falls within the third clause of Section 299, and the offence
committed was only "culpable homicide not amounting to murder",
punishable under Section 304, Part II. Counsel has thus tried to
support the reasoning of the High Court''.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
36. In view of the above discussions and the judgment cited supra,
I am of the view that the first accused ought to have been convicted for
the offence under Section 304 part-2 IPC and not under Section 304
part-1 IPC as the nature in which the occurrence had taken place has got
the element only to his knowledge and not his intention. Hence, I feel
that the conviction of the first accused in respect of the offence under
Section 304 part-1 alone has to be modified by finding him guilty for the
offence under Section 304 part-2 IPC.
36. Similarly, the finding of guilt and conviction against the
second accused under Section 324 IPC in view of her involvement in
attacking P.W.1 can also be confirmed. The finding and conviction of the
second accused in respect of the offence under Section 324 IPC is
confirmed.
37. In fine,
i) This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the judgment passed
in S.C.No.383 of 2013 dated 28.02.2017 on the file of the 1 st Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, is modified as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
Offence u/s By the Trial Court Modified by this Court
1st Accused: to undergo 3 months Confirmed
Section 294(b) (R.I)
Section 323 IPC – to undergo 1 year(R.I) Confirmed
and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/- i/d to
undergo 2 months(R.I)
Section 304 (1) IPC – to undergo 10 years Modified to 304(2) IPC –
(R.I) and to pay a fine to undergo 5 years (R.I) and
of Rs.15000/- i/d to to pay a fine of Rs.15,000/-
undergo one year (R.I) i/d to undergo one year (R.I)
2nd Accused: To undergo 1 year Confirmed
Section 324 IPC (R.I) and to pay a fine
of Rs.10,000/- i/d to
undergo 2 months(R.I)
ii) It is learnt that the first accused has already undergone
imprisonment for a period of 90 days (from 02.03.2011 to
03.06.2011)and the second accused has undergone imprisonment for a
period of 36 days (from 02.03.2011 to 09.04.2011). It is further directed
that the period of detention already undergone by the accused shall be
given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C and the sentences shall run
concurrently.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
iii) The trial court shall take steps to secure the accused to commit
them to prison to serve out the remaining period of sentence.
26.06.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
CM
To,
1.1st Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.
2.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
R.N.MANJULA, J
CM
Judgment made in
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/07/2025 06:12:34 pm )
