Madras High Court
Seerangan vs The State Rep By on 10 November, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.No.175 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.175 of 2022
Seerangan ... Appellant
Vs.
The State Rep by
The Inspector of Police,
Thammampatty Circle
Salem District
Crime No.200 of 2012 ... Respondent
PRAYER: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C. to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C No.198
of 2013 dated 05.04.2019 passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Sankarasubbu
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
Assisted by
Mr.M.Karthikeyan
Advocate
Page 1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
Crl.A.No.175 of 2022
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by N.Sathish Kumar J.)
Challenging the sentence of life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.1000/- imposed for the offence under Section 302 IPC, this appeal has
been filed by the sole accused.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:-
The accused and the deceased were father and son, residing in
Seeliyampatti Village. PW1 and PW2 are the mother and grandmother of
the deceased, respectively. The deceased was employed in coconut
plucking work in the surrounding area.
2 (i). On 10.11.2012, at about 6.30 p.m., the accused was sitting in
an intoxicated state, in the front yard of the house, near Nadar Street,
Athumedu, Seeliyampatti. At that time, he called his son, who had
returned from his work. When the deceased remained silent, the accused
shouted at him and picked up a quarrel with him and took a sharp knife
(M.O.7) from his house and voluntarily cut the deceased on his left side
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
neck, as a result of which, he succumbed to the injuries. Immediately,
PW1, the mother of the deceased lodged a complaint Ex.P1.
2(ii). P.W.2, the grandmother of the deceased, and P.W.3, the co-
brother of the accused, upon hearing the noise of PW1, rushed to the spot
and found the body of the deceased with cut injuries.
2(iii). On receipt of the complaint (Ex.P.1) from P.W.1, the Sub-
Inspector of Police, P.W.6, registered a case in crime No.200 of 2012
under Section 302 IPC and prepared the First Information Report
(Ex.P.11) and forwarded the same to the Court and copy to the
Investigation Officer.
2(iv). P.W.8, the Investigation Officer, took up the investigation
and went to the place of occurrence, on the same day and as there was no
sufficient light in that place and there was no witnesses at that time, he
commenced his investigation on the next day morning. He prepared the
Observation Mahazar(Ex.P.2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P.13) in the
presence of P.W.3 and one Sellamuthu. He conducted an inquest over
the dead body of the deceased in the presence of panchayatdars and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P.14). A.R. copy of the deceased is Ex.P15.
Thereafter, he sent the body of the deceased for post-mortem along with
his requisition (Ex.P4) through PW7, to the Medical officer for
conducting the autopsy. He further seized M.O.6 blood-stained concrete
earth and M.O.7 sample concrete earth under the cover of Seizure
Mahazar (Ex.P3) in the presence of the same witnesses and recorded the
statement of the witnesses.
2(v). P.W.4 the Medical Officer attached to the GMKMC Hospital,
Salem, on receipt of the request from the Investigation Officer, conducted
Autopsy and found the following external injuries:-
EXTERNAL EXAMINATION:INJURIES:
I. A. GAPPING CUT INJURY SEEN OVER LEFT
SIDE OF NECK EXTENDS FROM RIGHT CLAVICLE TO
LEFT SIDE OF NECK MEASURING 10 X 5.5X4.5 CMS,
THE ANGLES ARE SHARP, CLEAN AND ACUTE ANGLE
O/D NECK: INTERNAL INJURIES: B.CUT FRACTURE OF
RIGHT STERNAL END OF CLAVICLE. C. LET SIDE
CAROTID ARTERY, JUGULAR VEIN AND OTHER SMALL
VESSELS, D.MUSCLES OF THE LEFT SIDE OF NECK
SEVERED. HYOID BONE-INTACT.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
ALL ABOVE INJURIES ARE DARK RED IN COLOUR
II.O/D THORAX :- NO RIBS FRACTURE. HEART-NORMAL
IN SIZE.CHAMBERS- EMPTY VALVES AND CORONARIES-
NORMAL LUNGS-C/S PALE. CUT FRACTURE OF T1, T2,
T3 THORACIC VERTEB WITH SURROUNDING SOFT
TISSUE CONTUSED.550 GMS OF CLOTTED BLOOD AND
350 ML OF FLUID BLOOD FOUND IN THE THORACIC
CAVITY.
III. O/D HEAD:- SCALP-NORMAL. DURA MEMBRANE -
INTACT. CRANIAL VALUE INTACT. BRAIN C/S PALE.
BASE OF SKULL-INTACT.
IV.O/D.ABDOMEN: STOMACH CONTAINS 300 GMS OF
PARTLY DIGESTED COOKED RICE PARTICLES WITH NO
SPECIFIC ODOUR, MUCOSA C/S PALE. LIVER, SPLEEN
AND KIDNEYS C/S PALE. BLADDER.EMPTY.
NECK INJURIES AND THORACIC SPINE INJURIES ARE
ANTEMORTEM IN NATURE".
He issued Postmortem report (Ex.P.5) and the Final Opinion (Ex.P7)
stating that the deceased appeared to have died due to shock and
hemorrhage as a result of cut injuries sustained on the neck.
2(vi). In continuation of the investigation, P.W.8 arrested the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
accused on 12.10.2012 at 7.00 p.m and recorded his confession statement,
in the presence of PW5, and the admissible portion of which is marked as
Ex.P.8. Pursuant to the said confession, he recovered M.O.7, knife, under
the cover of Ex.P.9 Seizure Mahazar. Subsequently, the accused was
remanded to judicial custody and the material objects were forwarded to
the Court. He gave a requisition Ex.P16 to the Judicial Magistrate No.2,
Attur to send the internal organs for chemical analysis and in turn, the
internal organs were sent for chemical analysis with a requisition Ex.P17
by the said Magistrate. On the basis of the same, Ex.P18 Biology Report
and Ex.P19 Chemical Report and Ex.P20 Serology Report were received.
After completing the investigation and recording the statements of all
witnesses and the Medical Officer, P.W.8 laid a final report against the
accused under Section 302 IPC.
3. Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed a charge
against the accused for offence under Section 302 IPC. The accused
denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the
side of the prosecution, as many as eight witnesses were examined as
P.Ws.1 to 8 and twenty-one documents were marked as Exs.P.1 to 21.
Besides, nine Material Objects were marked as M.Os.1 to 9.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
4. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused
under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he did
not choose to examine any witnesses nor did he mark any documents on
his side.
5. Based on the evidence of materials, the Trial Court found the
accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 of IPC, convicted and
sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the present
appeal has been filed.
6.The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit
that there was no premeditation to commit the offence. The entire
occurrence took place during a sudden quarrel and the accused neither
took any undue advantage nor acted in a cruel manner. In a sudden fight,
when the accused was in an intoxicated state, delivered a single blow
which resulted in the death of his own son. Hence the act of the accused
clearly falls within the ambit of Section 304 of the IPC and not under
Section 302. He further contended that the evidence of PW1 establishes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
that there was no source of light in the house and that the incident
occurred during a sudden quarrel. The accused had no intention to inflict
injuries on any vital part of the body. However, accidentally, the injury
fell on the neck, when the deceased tried to bend. Therefore, the act of
the accused does not fall under the ambit of Section 302 of the IPC.
7.Whereas, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for
the respondent would submit that PW1, mother of the deceased has
clearly spoken that the accused took a knife (M.O.7) from the house and
inflicted the cut injury. Therefore, the act of the accused certainly falls
within the ambit of 302 of IPC.
8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused
the material placed before this Court.
9. As far as the death caused by homicidal violence is concerned,
the prosecution has clearly established the same. The Medical Officer
(PW4), who conducted autopsy, categorically deposed that the deceased
died due to shock and hemorrhage resulting from the cut injuries
sustained on the neck. The nature of the injuries clearly indicates a cut
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
measuring 10 × 5.5 × 4.5 cm on the neck, which was vital and fatal. The
prosecution has clearly established the homicidal violence through the
testimony of the medical officer. PW1 is the mother of the deceased and
the wife of the accused. There was no reason for her to falsely implicate
the accused unnecessarily. Her testimony reveals that on 11.10.2012,
while the accused was sitting in his house consuming liquor, his son
objected and remarked that the accused would only learn good behavior if
he were tied up and beaten. This led to a verbal altercation between the
father and son. Immediately, the accused went inside the house, brought
out a knife (M.O.7), and inflicted cut injuries on his son, which turned
fatal.
10. The evidence of PW1 clearly indicates that the accused caused
the cut injury, following which PW2, the grandmother of the deceased,
rushed to the spot upon hearing the sound of her daughter and found the
body of the deceased with cut injuries. PW3 also witnessed the deceased
who was lying on the lap of PW1. Though PW2 and PW3 were cited as
eye witnesses, they heard the sound of PW1 and saw the dead body. The
presence of PW1 at the scene has also been clearly established. Based
on the evidence of PW1, it has been clearly established that the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
caused the cut injury. The accused was arrested on 12.10.2012, and
pursuant to his confession, a bill hook was seized from him. The weapon
contain blood of group O+, which matches the blood group of the
deceased, as confirmed by the Serology Report marked as Ex.P20.
Hence, we are of the view that the prosecution has established that it was
the accused who inflicted the cut injury.
11. Now the point for consideration is whether the act committed
by the accused falls under any of the statutory exemptions.
12. From the evidence of PW1 clearly show that when the father
had consumed liquor, there was a quarrel between the father and son.
During cross examination, PW1 admitted that the deceased told his father
that he should be tied and beaten, which led to a serious quarrel between
them. The evidence of PW1 would clearly show that the accused was
provoked by his son by saying that he should be tied and beaten.
Immediately, there arose a quarrel between them. In fact, there was no
premeditation on the part of the accused. The entire occurrence took
place during a sudden quarrel and in a moment of impatience. The
accused did not take any undue advantage except for delivering a single
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
blow. He did not act in an unusually aggressive manner. Immediately
after delivering the single blow on the victim's neck, he fled away from
the place of occurrence. This fact indicates that he acted in an unusual
manner and did not take any undue advantage. Though the single blow
fell on the vital part of the body, the complaint and the evidence of PW1
clearly indicates that only when the victim tried to bend down, the blow
fell on the neck which indicates that infact, the accused had no intention
whatsoever to cause serious injuries on the neck. Only in that sudden
quarrel, while the victim was bending himself, the blow fell on him
which became fatal. Therefore, considering the above aspects, it is
evident that the entire occurrence took place during a sudden quarrel and
not due to any deliberate act while the victim was bending. The accused
did not take any undue advantage nor did he act in a cruel manner.
Hence, we are of the view that the act of the accused clearly falls within
the ambit of Section 304(1) of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, we
are inclined to modify the sentence of life imprisonment to a term of 10
years.
13. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
conviction and sentence imposed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem,
in S.C. No.198 of 2013 dated 05.04.2019, for the offence under Section
302 of the Indian Penal Code, are hereby modified. The petitioner shall
undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years. The fine amount
imposed by the trial Court is remain unaltered.
(N.SATHISH KUMAR J.)(M.JOTHIRAMAN J.)
10.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Neutral citation : Yes/No
Speaking/non-speaking order
uma
To
1. The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Thammampatty Circle
Salem District
3. The Public Prosecutor,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
N.SATHISHKUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN,j
uma
10.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/11/2025 04:14:49 pm )
