Madras High Court
Tamil Selvan vs The State Rep. By on 29 October, 2025
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
Crl.A.No.196 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
Crl.A.No.196 of 2019
Tamil Selvan ... Appellant/Accused
-vs-
The State Rep. by
Inspector of Police,
Sethiyathope Police Station,
Cuddalore District ... Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. to set aside
the order passed by the Hon'ble II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chidambaram in S.C.No.216 of 2015 dated 20.11.2017.
For Appellant : Mr.R.John Satyan, Senior Counsel
For Mr.W.M.Abdul Majeed
For Respondent : Mr.A.Damodaran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem
Advocate
*****
JUDGMENT
(By N.Sathish Kumar, J.)
Challenging the sentence imposed by the Trial Court under
Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment, the present appeal came to be filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
2. Though a counsel on record has represented the appellant /
accused, Mr.R.John Satyan, learned Senior Counsel, who has been
appointed through High Court Legal Services Committee, has rendered a
pro bono service in this case and advanced his argument for the appellant /
accused.
3. The Appellant herein, who is the Sole Accused in
S.C.No.216 of 2015 on the file of the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, stands convicted by the Trial Court for an
offence under Section 302 IPC as follows:
Sl.No. Conviction Sentence
1. Section 302 IPCTo undergo Life Imprisonment with
fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to pay fine
to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a
period of 6 Months.
The period of remand already undergone by the accused was directed to be
set off . Aggrieved by the order of the learned II Additional District and
Sessions Judge, Chidambaram, the Appellant has preferred the present
Criminal Appeal before this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
4. Brief Facts of the Prosecution case are as follows:
4.1. The deceased (Thangarasu) is the father of the accused.
P.W.1 (Thamaraiselvan) is the brother of the accused and P.W.2 (Vanitha)
is the wife of P.W.1. The accused married 15 years back and settled in
Kerala. P.W.1 was residing with the deceased in the Village. Since the
mother of the accused and P.W.1 died on 21.02.2015, the accused came
from Kerala to participate in the last rites and after completion of rituals,
children of the accused were sent to Kerala. The 7th day ceremony was
scheduled on 28.02.2015. On 27.02.2015 at 9.00pm, the accused demanded
partition of the property from the deceased for which the deceased informed
the accused that he would give the property to his daughter and thereafter,
divide the property. Therefore, there was a quarrel between the father and
the accused. On the next day at about 2.00pm, the accused once again
demanded partition and during such demand, the accused hit the deceased
with M.O.1 in the shoulder. P.Ws.1 and 2 and others witnessed the
occurrence. P.W.1 immediately lodged a complaint with P.W.21 / Sub-
Inspector of Police, who had registered a case in Crime No.37 of 2015
under Ex.P13 and forwarded the same to the Court, with a copy to P.W.22.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
4.2. P.W.22 took up the investigation and went to the place of
occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2), recorded the
statement of witnesses and also seized the material objects from the place of
occurrence (Ex.P3). He conducted inquest over the body and thereafter
forwarded the dead body through P.W.15 to P.W.17 (Doctor) for post-
mortem. P.W.17 conducted post-mortem and noted the following external
injuries under Ex.P9:
i) Lacerated injury on the left forehead above left
eyebrow 6x2x1cm;
ii) Lacerated wound over right cheek 1x1x1/2 cm
iii) Laceration 4x2 cm on the left bemparaparietal
region;
iv) Contusion over left side neck
v) Abrasion 2x2x1½ over left clavicle
vi) Abrasion over right clavicle 2x1cm
vii) Abrasion over left shoulder and right shoulder
viii) Abrasion over right upper chest.
4.3. After post-mortem, P.W.17 found that the deceased died
due to head injury and haemorrhage and also issued post-mortem report
(Ex.P9). P.W.17 opined that the injuries were sustained on account of the
attack with M.O.1. P.W.20 (Scientific Officer) examined the material
objects sent by the Investigating Officer and submitted a report under
Ex.P12. Judicial Magistrate (P.W.16) recorded the 164 statement of P.Ws.1,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
2 and 4. P.W.22 arrested the accused on 28.02.2015 at 19.30 hours and
recorded his confession and also seized M.O.1 in the presence of P.W.10,
pursuant to the admitted portion in the confession statement of the accused.
After completion of the investigation, P.W.22 laid a final report in this case.
4.4. In order to bring on the guilt of the accused, 23 witnesses
have been examined on the side of the prosecution, exhibited 22 documents
and 8 Material Objects were marked. The Trial Court, after analyzing the
entire evidence and materials, sentenced the accused to undergo life
imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. Challenging the said judgment, the
accused has filed the instant appeal.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant submitted that
though the presence of the accused was very much established and there
was evidence to show that the occurrence was the result of quarrel between
the father and the son in dividing the property, P.Ws.3 & 4 could not have
witnessed the occurrence. Though P.W.1 has spoken about the accused, his
evidence cannot be believed, since he had motive in respect of the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
There may be a possibility of implicating the accused to take the entire
property. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that in any event, the
evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 can be appreciated only to infer that there was a
quarrel between the father and the son, which has resulted in the attack and
the accused has not taken any undue advantage and the evidence of P.W.3
makes it clear that he was present in the place, when the accused attacked
the deceased. The accused, under the total deprivation of his self-control
caused injury to the deceased under the heat of passion and the act of the
appellant is not a murder but only culpable homicide not amounting to
murder and therefore, the case may fall under Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC, so as to have the benefit of reduction of punishment under Section 304
(ii) IPC
6. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the
guilt of the accused has been duly established by the prosecution and
therefore, the Trial Court rightly imposed the imprisonment for life. The
judgment of the Trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
7. We have heard the learned counsel on either side and
perused the material documents available on record.
8. The presence of the accused has been clearly established and
the evidence of witnesses would clearly indicate that it was the accused,
who pushed the deceased, while demanding partition, which had resulted in
the injury. It has been duly established that there was a quarrel between the
father and son and the accused hit the deceased with M.O.1. The accused
has come down to the native place after 15 years, which has been proved by
the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the 7th day ceremony was scheduled on
28.02.2015. On 27.02.2015 at 9.00pm, there was a quarrel between the
father and the son over dividing the property. Though P.Ws.1 & 2 stated as
if they witnessed the occurrence, they had not made any attempt to prevent
such attack. It clearly indicates that only after the attack, the deceased fell
down and the witnesses gathered. This has been substantiated by the
admission of P.W.2 in the cross examination. P.W.2 stated that she came
running to the house only after hearing the sound. There was a clear
contradiction between her evidence in the chief examination and the cross
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
examination. In the cross examination, she clearly stated that her father-in-
law / deceased abused the accused and infuriated by the same, there was a
quarrel between the accused and the deceased. In such circumstances, the
accused hit the deceased with M.O.1. After attacking the deceased, the
accused did not run away from the place of occurrence and he was very
much present till the Police comes to the spot, which was spoken by P.W.5.
9. It is seen that the accused had not taken any undue
advantage after hitting the deceased and the entire occurrence was the result
of quarrel between the father and the son in dividing the property. P.W.2
stated that the deceased, in a drunken mood, abused the accused and
enraged by the same, the accused attacked the deceased and caused injury.
We are of the view that the act of the accused will fall within the ambit of
Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC, since the offender attacked the deceased
without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion, upon sudden
quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in
cruel or unsound manner. However, there is intention on the part of the
accused to cause bodily injury, as there was a repeated attack on the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
deceased, which is likely to cause death and any injury on the head would
likely to cause death. Any act causing death committed with the intention
of causing death or of causing bodily injury likely to cause death will fall
under Section 304 (i) IPC.
10. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case and in view of the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion
that the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below requires
modification, as the facts of the present case clearly fall under Exception 1
to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and therefore, the appellant is
convicted for “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” and he is
sentenced under Section 304 (i) of the Indian Penal code, to undergo
Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of eight years.
11. The conviction and sentence passed by the Court below in
S.C.No.216 of 2015, is modified to the above extent and accordingly, this
Criminal Appeal is allowed in part. It is made clear that the appellant shall
be entitled for set off in accordance with Section 428 of the Code of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
Criminal Procedure for the period of detention already undergone by him.
The appellant is directed to immediately surrender before the concerned
jurisdictional Magistrate and on such surrender, the appellant shall be
confined in jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any. It is
made clear that if the appellant fails to surrender before the concerned
Court, the respondent police shall secure the appellant and produce him
before the Magistrate and thereafter, he shall be confined to the prison.
(N.S.K,J.,) (M.J.R,J.,)
29.10.2025
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes / No
ar
To:
1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chidambaram.
2. The Inspector of Police,
Sethiyathope Police Station,
Cuddalore District
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
ar
29.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/11/2025 08:44:35 pm )
