Madras High Court
Balamurugan vs The State on 24 March, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 24.03.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
CRL.A(MD)No.242 of 2022
Balamurugan ... Appellant/Sole Accused
(Now confined as life convict in
Palayamkottai Central Prison)
.Vs.
The State, through
The Inspector of Police,
Kayathar Police Station,
Thoothukudi District
(In Crime No.11 of 2019) ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code
praying this Court to call for the reords connected to the Judtment in S.C.No.116
of 2019, dated 23.09.2021, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahalir Court(Fast
Track Mahila Court),Thoothukudi and to set aside the conviction and sentence
imposed against the appellant.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
For Appellant : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Addl.Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J
AND
R.POORNIMA.,J
This Criminl Appeal is directed against the conviction preferred by the
sole accused being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction rendered in
S.C.No.116 of 2019, dated 23.09.2021, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahalir
Court(Fast Track Mahila Court),Thoothukudi.
2.The brief facts is that:
Kaleeswari, grand-daughter of the deceased by name, Arumuga Perumal
gave a complaint to the Kayathar Police Station on 23.1.2019 at 20.00 hours
informing that her grand-father by name Arumuga Perumal residing at North
Illanthaikulam Village was attacked by the accused who is residing in the
opposite house when there was a wordy quarrel beween her and the accused in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
which her grand-father intervened. The incident, according to the complainant
was a consequence of the earlier wordy quarrel between P.W.1 and the accused
happened on the same day. The incident was witnessed by Chellammal P.W.2,
Eswari P.W.3, P.W.4 Veeralakshmi and P.W.5 Marimuthu. The Investigation
Officer proceeded to the spot, prepared the Observation Mahazar and Athatchi in
the presence of independent witnesses Shamugaraj, examined as P.W.6 and one
Gurusamy. The inquest was conducted in the place of crime and thereafter the
body was taken to Tamil Nadu Medical College Hospital for post-mortem. The
blood-stained materials were sent for chemial analysis and chemcial examination
report as well as the serological report were obtained. The accused was arrested
on the same day. On completion of investigation, final report was filed and the
the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, being satisfied that the
offence are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
3.On perusing the records, the Sessions Court framed charge against the
accused for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women
from Harassment Act and Section 302 of IPC and Section 506(ii) of IPC.The
substance of the charge is that the accused residing opposite to the house of P.W.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
1 on 23.1.2019 at about 4.15 p.m got provoked by P.W.1 reprimanding her
childen playing in the street as if P.W.1 is scolding the mother of the accused by
in and do. Therefore there was a wordly quarrel between them at 4.30 p.m. When
P.W.1 went to purchase groceries, the accused followed her with aruval .P.W.1
was allerted by P.W.2 and P.W.3 and before she could realize, her grand father
who came their intervened and prevent the assault. At that time, the accused
after abusing P.W.1 with all abusive words and attacked Arumugaperumal with
Aruval. The said Arumugaperumal to avoid the attack directed on his head
prevented it with his left fore-arm and the attack used to fall on his fore arm.Then
again, the accused attacked Arumuga Perumal wih Aruval on his head causing
injury. The said Arumugaperumal was taken to the hospital immediately. Further
he succumbed to the injury after 12 days of treatment. ie., on 3.2.209 at about
8.40 p.m.
4.Since the accused had threatened the persons, who were witnessing the
occurrence, if they come near him, they will also face the same conseqence and
intimidate them of dire consequnces.The trial Court has felt that he has also
committed the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC, besides, the offence under
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women From Harassment Act for abusing
P.W.1 and Section 302 for causing death of Arumugaperumal with an intention to
cause death.
5.To prove the charges, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and
marked 19 exhibits and also 6 material objects.Since the occular evidence of P.W.
1 to P.W.6 were so cogent and reliable about the occurrence, the trial Court held
that the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and
sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in
default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under
Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for
the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women from
Harassment Act.The trial Court acquitted him for the offence under Section
506(ii) IPC, since the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The said
conviction and sentence is challenged on the ground that the Court below had
erred in not appreciating he contradiction between the evidence of P.W.4 and
P.W.5, whose presence is highly doubtful. The proximity between the date of
evidence and date of death and the probability of intervening factors for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
cause of death, not been properly appreciated by the trial Court.The prosecution
has also not placed the medical records of the deceased to know what sort of
direction is given to him from the date of his admission in the hospital on
23.1.2019 and date of his death ie., on 3.2.2019.
6.,The learned counsel also submit that the accused right from his birth
been suffering from mental disorder and the same has been taken note of by the
learned Judicial Magistrate while he was produced for remand.The presence of
medical records would also indicate that the accused has been in continuous
treatment for his mental illness. Even as per the prosecuion, the occurrence has
taken place due to provocation and by mistake. The deceased was a passer-by
and the accused has no intention to harm him. While so, the conviction under
Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. There is an unexplained delay in registering
the FIR and forwarding the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate and that was
not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Regarding the testimony or P.W.
1 to P.W.6, were cogently incriminated the appellant. The learned counsel for the
appellant would submit that P.W.1 and 2 are interested witnesses and they had
also intimidated wih the appellant and therefore their testimony cannot be taken
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
as a gospel truth and be treated as wholly reliable witnesses.
7.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
respondent/State would submit that the occurrnce took place in a public place at
day light and the accused is not an unknown person, but a known person. The
alleged provocation is only self inflicted provocation by the accused which had
presumed that P.W.1 reprimanding her young child was in and do. He had not
stopped with one blow with aruval which was prevented by the deceased but
had made the second blow on the vital part of the body, which is the cause for the
death.
8.Relying upon the evidence of the post-mortem Doctor and the Post
mortem Certificate, the appellant submitted that the cause for the death is due to
the injury sustained. The Doctor has opined that Arumugaperumal appered to
have died of complications of heavy cut injury to the region of head. If the
death had caused due to any other intervening factors that would have been
revealed in the post mortem certificate. Non production of medical records will
not give any assistance and help to the accused to doubt the prosecution case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
The ocular evidence of P.W.1 to 3 without no doubt speaks about the overtact of
the accused and his intention to cause death of Arumugaperumal and try to
intervene with the accused and try to attack P.W.1. The lerned Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted that the deceased is the grand-father of P.W.1, P.W.2 is the
sister of P.W.1, P.W.3 is the neighgbour living in the same street, They are all
natural witnesses and their evidence does not suffer from any embelishment and
therefore contended that the finding of the trial Court has to be confirmed.
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials placed before this Court.
10.The post mortem certificate reveals that Arumugaperumal sustained cut
injury to a length of 5 cms left side of frontal region and also 5 cm cut injury on
the back of the left fore-arm, besides, certain abrasion and injuries on the frontal
region. The cause for the death as pointed out by the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor does not reveal any other cause for the death out of the explicit
complications arising out of the cut injury in the head region. The complications
thought not mentioned, that cannot be considered as an intervening factor to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
aggravate the injury due to medical intervention. Therefore, the duty of the Court
is to examine the witness whether the injury caused by the accused on
Arumugaperumal was with an intention and knowledge to cause death and
whether the act of causing death falls under any of the exceptions as
contemplated under the staute. In this regard, this Court taking note of the fact
that the appellant is not a normal person, but, he had some mental disturbance.
Probably hat had made him to provoke that P.W.1 was scolding her children
when they were playing in the street. This provocation caused at 4.15 p.m had
made him to follow P.W.1 when she was on the way to purchase groceries. This
Court finds that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the appellant following P.W.1
with Aruval. Tbey have allerted and shouted at her to run away. The evidence of
these two witnesses are quite natual and they are the persons at the scene of
occurrnece, has also cannot be ruled out as improbable. The appellant had
attacked Arumugaperumal, who had suddently intervened to save his grand
daughter. Therefore, it is quite clear that his intenton was not to cause any fatal
or death of Arumugaperumal, but, it is only fit of anger he has attacked
Arumugaperumal not once but twice.The second blow has been the vital blow
which has caused the death of Arumugaperumal. To make it short, that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
evidence of eyewitness though proved that the injury caused by the appellant is
the reason for the death of Arumugaperumal, when we test whether the injury
was caused with knowledge and with an intention to cause death and whether it
falls under any of the exceptions as contemplated under Section 300 of IPC. We
are able to lay our land to the exception (1) which reads as below:
‘’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 --
secondly.-- if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injuury as the
offender knows to be likely to cause death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or--
Thirdly.--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--
Fourthly.--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.’’
11.In this case, even as per the complaint, the appellant due to deprivation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
of his self control had caused the death of Arumugaperumal. The accused had no
intention to cause any injury to Arumugaperumal, but, had attacked him because
he had intervened when the accused was about to attack P.W.1. It is a case of
transfer of mallice and therefore for that reason the appellant cannot be
exonerated for except to take the incident to the first exception of Section 300
of IPC as a mitigting circumstances to punish him under Section 304(1) IPC
rather under Section 302 IPC.
12.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant
was arrested on 23.01.2019, since then is confined in prison. His mental health is
also not upto the mark and deteriorating, hence seek for modification of the
sentence.
13.After due consideration of the facts and evidences, this Court holds that
the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Women from Harassment Act and the offence punishable under Section 304 (1)
of IPC. As far as the sentence is concerned, taking into consideration the events
as discussed above, the appellant is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of
Women from Harassment Act and Six years rigorous imprisonment( 6 years RI)
for the offence under Section 304(1) IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to
undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.
14.The period of sentence shall run concurrently. The period of
incarceration already undergone both pre-trial and post-trial, shall be set off
under Section 428 of IPC.
15With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
[G.J.,J.] [R.P.,J.]
24.03.2025
NCS : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
To
The Sessions Judge,
Mahalir Court(Fast Track Mahila Court),
Thoothukudi.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.
and
R.POORNIMA,J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN
24.03.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/04/2025 05:09:15 pm )
