Madras High Court

Ayyanar vs State Rep on 26 June, 2025

                                                                                          Crl.A.(MD)No.5 of 2018


                             BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 26.06.2025

                                                           CORAM :

                                  THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

                                               Crl.A.(MD)No.5 of 2018


                     Ayyanar                                                ... Appellant/Sole Accused

                                                              versus


                     State rep., by
                     The Inspector of Police,
                     Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station,
                     Virudhunagar District.
                     Crime No.129 of 2010                                   ... Respondent/Complainant

                     Prayer : Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal
                     Procedure, to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court of
                     the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar in S.C.No.110 of
                     2010 dated 19.12.2017 and allow this criminal appeal.


                                   For Appellant        : Mr.N.Anantha Padmanaban
                                                       Senior Counsel for M/s.APN Law Associates

                                   For Respondent        : Mr.K.Gnanasekaran
                                                           Government Advocate (Crl.side)




                     1/14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis              ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )
                                                                                            Crl.A.(MD)No.5 of 2018



                                                             JUDGMENT

This criminal appeal has been preferred as against the judgment of

conviction and sentence, dated 19.12.2017 made in S.C.No.110 of 2010 by

the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, thereby

convicting and sentencing the appellant to undergo 1 month of simple

imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo one week

of simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of IPC; to

undergo 7 years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default to undergo 1 year of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under

Section 304(1) of IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Set

off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C., is also ordered.

2. The case of the prosecution had arisen on the basis of the

complaint, Ex.P12, First Information Report, given by the defacto

complainant, P.W.1, registered in Crime No.129 of 2010 at the

Aruppukottai Taluk Police Station, for the offences under Sections 341 and

302 of IPC, is as follows:

(a) The deceased Punithakumar, who is the son of P.W.1, defacto

complainant, and his wife Ramalakshmi would quarrel frequently. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )

defacto complainant and the accused, who is the brother of Ramalakshmi,

used to pacify them. In pursuant to one such quarrel between the couples,

six months before the occurrence, the accused had stabbed the deceased and

caused injury, however, they got compromised. At this juncture, on

13.03.2010, some quarrel arose between the deceased Punithakumar and his

wife. On knowing about the same, on 14.03.2010, the defacto complainant

and his younger son Senthilkumar came to the house of the Punithakumar.

At that time, the accused was also present there. The accused, defacto

complainant and his younger son, Senthilkumar condemned the spouses for

the frequent quarrels between them and thereby advised them. In course of

such conversation, a quarrel exploded between the accused and the

deceased. The defacto complainant and his son interfered and condemned

them. All of a sudden, the accused took a knife from his waist and

attempted to stab the deceased that had driven away the deceased. The

accused chased, restrained the deceased and stabbed him with knife on his

upper abdomen resulting in the death of the deceased. It was witnessed by

the defacto complainant and his younger son, who attempted to apprehend

the accused, but he fled away.

(b) After completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed

against the accused. Since the offence is triable by the Sessions Court, the

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )

case was committed to the Sessions Court. The trial Judge has taken

cognizance in S.C.No.110 of 2010 and after completing the legal mandate

of furnishing copies and all other legal formalities, the trial Judge framed

charges against the appellant for the offences under Sections 341 and 302

of IPC. When the accused was questioned, he denied the same and claimed

to be tried.

examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P16 were marked. Besides, M.O.1 to M.O.4

were marked. On the side of the defence, no oral and documentary evidence

was let in.

(d) After completion of trial, based on the oral and documentary

evidence, the trial Judge has convicted and sentenced the accused as stated

supra. Aggrieved over the same, this appeal has been preferred.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that

though the prosecution has cited P.W.1 and P.W.2 as eyewitnesses to the

occurrence, the evidence given by P.W.5 during his cross-examination is

quite contrary; He stated that P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to the spot, only after

crowd gathered around the body of the deceased. P.W.1 and P.W.2 are

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )

inimical and interested witnesses and therefore, their very presence at the

scene of occurrence is doubtful in the light of the above testimony of P.W.5.

The trial Court has convicted the appellant based on the evidence of hearsay

witnesses, erroneously treating them as eyewitnesses. The recovery of

weapon has not been proved by the prosecution. Moreover, the injury found

on the body of the deceased was a lacerated injury, not a cut injury that

could be attributed to the weapon allegedly used in the occurrence. The

learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that there are strong doubts in the

prosecution's case, and the benefit of doubt ought to be given to the

appellant.

4. The learned Government Advocate submitted that the presence of

the accused in the place of occurrence is not in dispute. On an earlier

occasion, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased and the

accused was always inimical towards the deceased. In this background, the

evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 is quite acceptable. A single line of P.W.5’s

evidence during his cross-examination cannot be read in isolation without

considering the entire prosecution evidence. The doctor, who was

examined as P.W.9, stated in his evidence that even an assault with a sharp

weapon might result in a lacerated injury if there is movement or resistance

from the body at the time of impact.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )

5. P.W.1, who is the defacto complainant and the father of the

deceased, stated in his complaint that upon hearing about a quarrel between

the deceased and his wife, he proceeded to the house of the deceased. As

the accused was also present there, P.W.1 and P.W.2 attempted to mediate

between the couples. While the argument escalated, both P.W.1 and P.W.2

tried to pacify them. However, the accused suddenly drew a knife from his

waist and attempted to stab the deceased, who immediately ran out of the

house. The accused also chased the deceased with the knife in his hands.

P.W.1 and P.W.2 also followed them. Approximately 50 feet from the

house, near the house of one Pandi, the accused unlawfully restrained the

deceased and stabbed him in the stomach. Though P.W.1 and P.W.2

immediately took the deceased to the hospital and succumbed to the injuries

and was declared dead.

6. From the evidence of P.W.1 also, the above mentioned facts are

corroborated. The postmortem report, marked as Ex.P.11, reveals that the

deceased sustained a stab injury measuring 5x2x5 cm over the right upper

abdomen. The internal examination further disclosed a lacerated injury

measuring 2x2x2 cm on the anterior aspect of the lower lobe of the liver.

As per the opinion of the doctor, the deceased appears to have died due to

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )

hemorrhage resulting from liver injury. The doctor, who conducted the

postmortem, examined as P.W.9, stated in his evidence the facts recorded in

the postmortem certificate. When the Court inquired whether there was any

connection between the external injury and the internal injury found in the

liver, the doctor responded that the weapon had penetrated up to the liver

from outside, causing an internal injury. He further clarified that a sharp

weapon like a knife can cause a lacerated injury to the liver because it is a

soft organ, and due to body movement at the time of the attack, it is possible

for a knife to inflict such a lacerated injury. The doctor has stated that,

regarding the cause of death, the deceased died due to heavy loss of blood

resulting from the injury. Therefore, it is established that the accused,

having attacked the deceased with a weapon like a knife, caused the fatal

injury leading to his death. Since the prosecution has successfully proved

the involvement of the accused in the occurrence, the trial Court was

justified in finding the accused guilty.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that P.W.

1 and P.W.2 were not present at the place of occurrence, and the evidence of

P.W.5 reveals that they only rushed to the spot after hearing about the

incident.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )

8. However, the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 clearly explains the

circumstances that necessitated their presence at the scene. Furthermore,

the cross-examination of P.W.1 and P.W.2 disclosed that the accused was

indeed at the house of the deceased on the day of the occurrence and was

involved in the altercation. He had also stated that shortly before the

occurrence the deceased and the accused were sitting together and

consumed alcohol.

9. As a quarrel arose between the deceased and his wife,

Ramalakshmi, the wife of the deceased called P.W.1, father of the deceased,

and reported about the occurrence. Hence, the presence of the accused at

the house of the deceased at the time of occurrence is very much probable

and it is stated in the evidence of P.W.1. This has been corroborated with

the evidence of P.W.2. P.W.5 has stated in his chief examination that the

deceased was running and the accused was chasing him with knife in his

hand. He has stated that P.W.1 and P.W.2 also chased the deceased.

10. A combined reading of the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.5,

clearly establishes that P.W.1 and P.W.2 were also present at the time of

occurrence and witnessed the incident. Hence, the trial Judge was correct in

concluding the involvement of the accused in the occurrence. The arrest of

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )

the accused, the recovery of material objects, and the marking of the

recovered items further corroborate the substantive evidence of the

witnesses relied upon by the learned trial Judge.

11. The inquest report, marked as Ex.P.14, appears to corroborate the

prosecution’s version of events. Although it mentions that the accused had

caused a stab injury on an earlier occasion, that injury was not serious, and

no complaint was filed against the accused in that regard. However, this

prior incident does not appear to have created any motive between the

deceased and the accused. This is because of their close relationship. Even

on the day of the occurrence, it is evident from the evidence of P.W.1 that

the deceased and the accused had consumed alcohol together and thereafter

entered into a quarrel. It was only the accused, who got provoked during the

sudden argument, which led to the incident. However, no eyewitness has

stated that the accused followed the deceased with an intention to cause

harm or kill him.

12. No doubt, the accused was carrying a deadly weapon like a knife,

but there is no evidence to suggest that he had made any prior preparation to

murder the deceased on the day of the occurrence. It is possible that, like

some others, the accused might have been carrying the knife without any

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )

specific intent to use it for killing. It appears that the accused, in a fist of

anger, chased the deceased with an intention to either threaten or cause

injury on him. Therefore, the trial Court was right in concluding that this

was not a case of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, but one

of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section

304 of the IPC.

13. The learned trial Judge had chosen to convict the accused under

Section 304(i) of IPC for having caused a bodily injury, which was likely to

cause death, and that the act was done with an intention of causing such

injury. In other words, while attacking the deceased, the accused might

have been conscious of and intended to cause the death of the deceased by

inflicting a serious bodily injury likely to result in death. However, none of

the witnesses have stated that the accused shouted or declared any intention

to kill the deceased. This indicates that the act of stabbing the deceased was

not premeditated. Therefore, the unlawful act committed by the accused,

which resulted in the death of the deceased, appears to have been done with

the knowledge that such an act might cause death, but without an intention

to cause death. In such cases, the offence of culpable homicide not

amounting to murder would fall under Part II of Section 304 of the IPC,

rather than Part I.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )

14. When the accused had no previous motive against the deceased,

and the attack occurred due to sudden provocation during an argument on

the day of the incident, it cannot be said that the act was committed with an

intention to cause death. Since a deadly weapon was used to stab the

deceased in the stomach, the act was undoubtedly committed with the

knowledge that it was likely to result in death. Therefore, in all fairness, I

feel that the accused ought to have been convicted for the offence under

Section 304(ii) IPC and not under 304(i) of IPC. Accordingly, the

impugned judgment of the learned trial Judge is liable to be interfered with

on this limited aspect, and the appeal is partly allowed to that extent.

15. In the result,

(i) This Criminal Appeal is partly allowed;

(ii) The impugned judgment passed by the learned Additional District

and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar, in S.C.No.110 of 2010 dated 19.12.2017

is hereby modified as under:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/07/2025 04:11:52 pm )

Findings and Punishment imposed by Modified by this Court the Trial Court Section 341 IPC Confirmed Found guilty, convicted and sentenced to undergo 1 month (S.I) and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, i/d to undergo 1 week (S.I) Section 304 (1) IPC Modified to Section Found guilty, convicted and sentenced to 304(2) IPC – to undergo undergo 7 years (R.I) and to pay a fine of 5 years (R.I) and to pay a Rs.1000/-, i/d to undergo one year (R.I) fine of Rs.1,000/-, i/d to six months (R.I)

iii) It is further directed that the period of detention already undergone

by the accused, if any, shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C and

the sentences shall run concurrently.