[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Murugan vs State Of Tamil Nadu Through on 17 February, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A(MD)No.64 of 2026
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 17.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.64 of 2026
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.925 of 2026
Murugan ... Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu through,
The Inspector of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Dindigul District.
In Crime No.352 of 2019. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415 (2) of BNSS
Act, 2023 to call for the records in S.C.No.80 of 2021 on the file of
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Palani and
set aside the Judgment of guilt and order of conviction and sentence
dated 14.11.2025.
1/20
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.64 of 2026
For Appellant : Mr.N.Anantha Padmanabhan
for M/s.APN Law Associates
For Respondent : Mr.R.Meenakshi Sundaram
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)
This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in
S.C.No.80 of 2021, dated 14.11.2025, on the file of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Palani, thereby
convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
294(b), 323 and 302 of I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution is that the son of the accused
and the son of the deceased were classmates at the Government High
School, Poondi, Kodaikanal. The accused had earlier warned the
deceased not to allow his son to associate with the accused’s son,
alleging that his son had developed bad habits because of the
deceased’s son.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
3.On 24.10.2019, at about 12.45 p.m., the accused went to
the school to complain about the conduct of the deceased’s son.
After lodging the complaint with the concerned teacher, when he
was coming out of the school premises, he saw the deceased, who
had come to the school during lunch hours to feed his son.
4.Upon seeing the deceased, the accused quarrelled with
him regarding his son’s conduct and abused him in filthy language.
An altercation ensued between them. The accused assaulted the
deceased with his hands in the presence of the deceased’s son. As a
result, the deceased sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital;
however, he was declared dead.
5.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in
Crime No.352 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections
294(b), 323 and 302 of I.P.C as against the accused. After
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report
and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.
6.On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the
charges to home, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 and Exs.P1 to
P11 were marked. On the side of the appellant, he had examined
D.W.1 and D.W.2 and no documents were marked before the Trial
Court.
7.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 294(b), 323 and 302 of I.P.C. He was sentenced to
undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
10,000/- in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for
the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. He was sentenced
to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C and he was imposed with a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month Simple
Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of
I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present
appeal.
8.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that there was absolutely no prior enmity between the
deceased and the accused. Even according to the prosecution case,
the accused went to the school to lodge a complaint against the
deceased’s son. After lodging the complaint, while he was coming
out of the school, he saw the deceased, and a wordy quarrel ensued
between them. The quarrel continued, resulting in a scuffle between
them.
9.During the altercation, when the deceased was pushed by
the accused, he fell on a stone and sustained injuries. Unfortunately,
he died on the way to the hospital. Therefore, the accused had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
absolutely no motive to do away with the life of the deceased. He
merely pushed him and had no intention to cause his death. Hence,
the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302 of
I.P.C
10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that the prosecution failed to prove how the injuries were
caused to the deceased. The prosecution also failed to examine any
material witness to corroborate the injuries sustained by the
deceased.
11.The Trial Court failed to consider the evidence of D.W.1
and D.W.2, who were examined on behalf of the accused. D.W.1
witnessed the occurrence and deposed that the son of the deceased
abused the accused in filthy language. He further stated that the
deceased only first assaulted the accused, and thereafter, the accused
pushed the deceased down, as a result of which he sustained injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
However, without properly considering the evidence, the Trial Court
mechanically convicted the accused for the major offence under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
12.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent submitted that the eyewitness to the
occurrence was examined as P.W.2. P.W.2 is none other than the son
of the deceased, who was present at the scene of crime. There was a
wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased with regard to
the friendship between the son of the accused and the son of the
deceased. Thereafter, the accused assaulted the deceased with a hand
and pushed him down. When P.W.2 intervened, he was also beaten
by the accused. As a result, the deceased sustained grievous injuries
all over his face. He also sustained fractures to his ribs.
Consequently, he died. The post-mortem report was marked as
Ex.P.5, and it clearly corroborates the injuries sustained by the
deceased. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
and the same does not warrant any interference of this Court.
13.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials available on record.
14.Admittedly, the son of the deceased and the son of the
accused were studying in the 10th standard. They had a close
acquaintance with each other. However, the accused believed that,
because of the close friendship with the son of the deceased, his son
did not study well and was also indulging in bad activities.
Therefore, he warned the son of the deceased not to maintain any
friendship with his son.
15.Accordingly, the accused went to the school on
24.10.2019 at about 12.25 p.m. to lodge a complaint. After making
the complaint, while he was returning home, the deceased came to
the school to feed his son. Upon seeing the deceased, the accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
quarreled with him and also scolded him using filthy language. Due
to the quarrel, the accused pushed the deceased down and also
attacked him on his hands. Consequently, the deceased fell and
fainted. He was immediately taken to the hospital. Unfortunately, he
was declared brought dead.
16.The only eyewitness, P.W.2, deposed that he is the son
of the deceased and stated that, regarding the friendship with the son
of the accused, there was a quarrel between the accused and the
deceased. On the date of occurrence, when the deceased came to the
school, the accused met him on the way to his home. Immediately,
they quarreled. The relevant portion of the deposition of P.W.2 is as
follows:
“fle;j 24.10.2019 e;Njjp gfy; Rkhu; 12.30
kzpastpy; mg;NghJ ehd; G+z;b muR cau;epiy
gs;spapy; ,Ue;Njd;. mg;NghJ ehd; gj;jhk; tFg;G
gbj;J nfhz;bUe;Njd;. vdJ je;ijahu; Nyhfehjd;
mg;NghJ vdf;F rhg;ghL vLj;J te;jpUe;jhu;. vdf;F
rhg;ghL nfhLj;J tpl;L jpUk;gp NghFk; NghJ vdJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
tFg;gpy; gbf;Fk; ckhehj; vd;gtUk; mtDila
je;ijahu; KUfd; vd;gtUk; vdJ je;ijahuplk;
cd;Dila kfDld; Nru;tjhy; jhd; vdJ kfDk;
nfl;L Nghfpwhd; vd;W tha;j;jfuhW nra;jhu;.
mg;NghJ vdJ je;ijahu; vd;Dila kfid vg;gb
Fiw nrhy;yyhk; vd Nfl;ljw;F tha;j;jfuhW
Kw;wp jfhj thu;j;ijfshy; Ngrp KUfd; vdJ
je;ijahiu mbj;J fPNo js;sptpl;lhu;. Nkw;gb
rk;gtk; Nkw;gb gs;spf;F vjpNu cs;s Nuhl;by;
itj;J ele;jJ. ehd; KUfdplk; vjw;F vdJ
mg;ghit mbf;fpwPu;fs; vd Nfl;ljw;F vd;idAk;
mbj;J vdJ ,lJ fhjpy; fbj;J tpl;lhu;. M[u;
vjpup jhd; Nkw;gb KUfd; Mthu;. vdJ neQ;rpy;
efq;fshy; fPwp itj;J tpl;lhu;. vdJ je;ijahu;
mq;NfNa kaf;fk; Nghl;L fPNo tpOe;J tpl;lhu;.
mg;NghJ me;j topahf te;j xU fhupy; vdJ
je;ijia Vw;wp kd;dtD}u; muR kUj;Jtkidf;F
ehDk; gs;sp Mrpupau; thrpkiy vd;gtUk; nfhz;L
nrd;Nwhk;.”
17.Thus, it is clear that the accused had come to the school
without knowing that the deceased was also present there. Further,
the accused assaulted the deceased with his hands. He pushed him
down, and as a result, the deceased fell and sustained injuries.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
Moreover, there was no motive on the part of the accused to do
away with the life of the deceased. He had come to the school only
to lodge a complaint against the son of the deceased. At that
juncture, he happened to meet the deceased and quarrelled with him.
Therefore, the accused had neither the motive nor the intention to
cause the death of the deceased. Hence, the prosecution has failed to
prove the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. However, the accused
is liable to be punished for the offence punishable under Section 304
Part II of I.P.C.
18.In this regard, it is relevant to reply upon judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Pulicherla
Nagaraju @ Nagaraja Reddy v. State of A.P [2007 (1) SCC (CRI)
500], wherein it has been observed as follows:
“18. Therefore, the court should proceed to
decide the pivotal question of intention, with care and
caution, as that will decide whether the case falls
under Section 302 or 304 Part I or 304 Part II. Many
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
petty or insignificant matters like plucking of a fruit,
straying of cattle, quarrel of children, utterance of a
rude word or even an objectionable glance, may lead
to altercations and group clashes culminating in
deaths. Usual motives like revenge, greed, jealousy or
suspicion may be totally absent in such cases. There
may be no intention. There may be no pre-meditation.
In fact, there may not even be criminality. At the other
end of the spectrum, there may be cases of murder
where the accused attempts to avoid the penalty for
murder by attempting to put forth a case that there was
no intention to cause death. It is for the courts to
ensure that the cases of murder punishable under
Section 302, are not converted into offences punishable
under Section 304 Part I/II, or cases of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, are treated as
murder punishable under Section 302. The intention to
cause death can be gathered generally from a
combination of a few or several of the following,
among other, circumstances:
(i) nature of the weapon used;
(ii) whether the weapon was carried by the accused or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
was picked up from the spot;
(iii) whether the blow is aimed at a vital part of the
body; (iv) the amount of force employed in causing
injury;
(v) whether the act was in the course of sudden quarrel
or sudden fight or free for all fight;
(vi) whether the incident occurs by chance or whether
there was any pre- meditation;
(vii) whether there was any prior enmity or whether the
deceased was a stranger;
(viii) whether there was any grave and sudden
provocation, and if so, the cause for such provocation;
(ix) whether it was in the heat of passion;
(x) whether the person inflicting the injury has taken
undue advantage or has acted in a cruel and unusual
manner;
(xi) whether the accused dealt a single blow or several
blows. The above list of circumstances is, of course, not
exhaustive and there may be several other special
circumstances with reference to individual cases which
may throw light on the question of intention. Be that as
it may.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
19.In this regard, it is also relevant to rely upon the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Criminal Appeal
No.1124 of 2022 in the case of Dauvaram Nirmalkar vs. State of
Chhattisgarh. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:-
“12. The question of loss of self-control by
grave and sudden provocation is a question of fact. Act
of provocation and loss of self-control, must be actual
and reasonable. The law attaches great importance to
two things when defence of provocation is taken under
Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC. First, whether
there was an intervening period for the passion to cool
and for the accused to regain dominance and control
over his mind. Secondly, the mode of resentment should
bear some relationship to the sort of provocation that
has been given. The retaliation should be proportionate
to the provocation. The first part lays emphasis on
whether the accused acting as a reasonable man had
time to reflect and cool down. The offender is presumed
to possess the general power of self-control of an
ordinary or reasonable man, belonging to the same
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
class of society as the accused, placed in the same
situation in which the accused is placed, to temporarily
lose the power of self-control. The second part
emphasises that the offender’s reaction to the
provocation is to be judged on the basis of whether the
provocation was sufficient to bring about a loss of self-
control in the fact situation. Here again, the court See
the opinion expressed by Goddar, CJ. in R v. Duffy
(supra) would have to apply the test of a reasonable
person in the circumstances. While examining these
questions, we should not be short-sighted, and must
take into account the whole of the events, including the
events on the day of the fatality, as these are relevant
for deciding whether the accused was acting under the
cumulative and continuing stress of provocation.
Gravity of provocation turns upon the whole of the
victim’s abusive behaviour towards the accused.
Gravity does not hinge upon a single or last act of
provocation deemed sufficient by itself to trigger the
punitive action. Last provocation has to be considered
in light of the previous provocative acts or words,
serious enough to cause the accused to lose his self-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
control. The cumulative or sustained provocation test
would be satisfied when the accused’s retaliation was
immediately preceded and precipitated by some sort of
provocative conduct, which would satisfy the
requirement of sudden or immediate provocation.”
20.The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case
on hand. Therefore, the appellant is liable to be punished for the
offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C.
21.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on
the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C
cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. However, the
appellant is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 304 Part II of I.P.C. The conviction and sentence imposed on
the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and
323 of I.P.C are hereby confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
22.In view of the above, the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.80 of 2021, dated 14.11.2025,
on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge
(FTC), Palani, for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C are set
aside and the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section
304 Part II of I.P.C and is sentenced to undergo seven years
Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default,
to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. The conviction and
sentence imposed on the accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 294(b) and 323 of I.P.C is hereby confirmed.
23.Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. It is
also made clear that if the appellant already paid the fine, it shall be
adjusted towards the fine amount imposed by this Court. The
sentences of imprisonment shall run concurrently. The period of
imprisonment already undergone by the appellant shall be set off as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]
17.02.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC),
Palani.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Kodaikanal Police Station,
Dindigul District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R. POORNIMA, J.
ps
17.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/02/2026 03:28:27 pm )
