[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Velayuthaperumal vs The State on 19 February, 2026
Author: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K.Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.A(MD)No.882 of 2024
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 19.02.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD)No.882 of 2024
and
Crl.M.P(MD)No.3315 of 2026
Velayuthaperumal ... Appellant/Sole Accused
Vs.
The State,
Represented by,
The Inspector of Police,
Manamelkudi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
Crime No.187 of 1990. ... Respondent/Complainant
PRAYER:- Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 415(2) of BNSS
or under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the records from the
lower Court and duly set aside the Judgment passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in S.C.No.36 of
2019, dated 27.01.2021.
1/22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
Crl.A(MD)No.882 of 2024
For Appellant : Ms.M.Krishnaveni
For Respondent : Mr.R.M.Anbunithi
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.36 of 2019, dated 27.01.2021, on the file of the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, thereby
convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 324 of I.P.C.
2.The case of the prosecution is that on 31.05.1990 at about
7:30 p.m., when the deceased and his father were standing in front of
the house belonging to one Muniyammal, they questioned the
accused as to how he could vulgarly tease his sister. Therefore, the
accused came out from his house and stabbed the deceased. The
deceased died on the way to the hospital and was subsequently
declared brought dead.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
3.On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in
Crime No.187 of 1990 for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 324 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the
respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken
cognizance by the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed charges as
against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302
and 324 of I.P.C.
4.On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the
charges to home, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and Exs.P1 to
P17 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Objects
M.O.1 to M.O.10. On the side of the appellant, no one was
examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.
5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable
under Sections 302 and 324 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in
default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence
punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo
six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under
Section 324 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has
preferred the present appeal.
6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the accused had absolutely no motive to do away with
the life of the deceased. Due to a sudden provocation by the
deceased, he stabbed him that too with a pen knife. Unfortunately,
the injury was inflicted on the throat of the deceased and, as a result
of heavy bleeding, he died. The accused had eight children.
Therefore, in order to support his family due to financial hardship,
after being released on bail, he went to Tiruppur for his livelihood
and stayed there. After 30 years, he was arrested and subjected to
trial. Hence, the absconding of the accused was neither wilful nor
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
wanton. He remained absent without being aware of the
consequences. Further, the injured witnesses were not examined by
the prosecution, which is fatal to the prosecution’s case. There are
also contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, which are fatal to the case.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further
submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the motive. Even
according to the case of the prosecution, the accused had merely
commented on the sister of the deceased, and therefore, he had no
intention to do away with the life of the deceased. In fact, the alleged
occurrence took place within the compound wall of the accused’s
house, and the accused never went to the deceased’s place to cause
his death. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge
under Section 302 of the IPC. The learned counsel further submitted
that, from the date of his arrest, the accused has been incarcerated
and remains in imprisonment till date.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondent submitted that after the arrest of the
accused, he was granted bail by the Trial Court. Thereafter, he
absconded for a period of 30 years. Consequently, the entire trial
was stalled, and the Trial Court was unable to proceed with the case.
Only after a lapse of 30 years the accused was secured, and the trial
was thereafter conducted by the Trial Court. Therefore, the
prosecution was unable to examine the injured witnesses. However,
the accident registers of the injured witnesses and their statements
recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. were duly marked before
the Trial Court. One of the eyewitnesses was examined as P.W.4, and
her evidence is cogent and trustworthy. Therefore, the Trial Court
rightly convicted the accused, and the same does not warrant any
interference of this Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
9.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and
perused the materials placed on record.
10.The motive behind the crime was that the accused had
teased P.W.4. This was informed to her brother, i.e., the deceased.
Therefore, the deceased went to the house of the accused and
questioned him about the same. Immediately, the accused came out
from his house and stabbed the deceased on his neck with a pen
knife. The sister of the deceased had deposed as P.W.4. The relevant
portion of her deposition is as follows:
“tpshq;fha; fhk;gTz;by; ehq;fs;
thliff;F FbapUe;jNghJ> M[u; vjpupAk; me;j
fhk;gTz;by; tlf;F gf;fk; cs;s tPlb
; y;
FbapUe;jhu;. Rkhu; 30 Mz;LfSf;F Kd;G M[u;
vjpup mtu; kidtpia gpupe;J ,Ue;jhu;> mg;NghJ
xU ehs; vd; mz;zd; rhKNty; ntspNa
NghapUe;j Neuk; M[h; vjpup vd;id ifia
gpbj;J ,Oj;J th vd;W $g;gpl;L fpz;ly;
nra;jhu;. ,e;j tptuj;ij vd; mz;zd; rhKNty;
te;jTld; mtuplk; nrhd;Ndd;. vd; mz;zd;
nrd;W M[u; vjpupaplk; eP vg;gb fpz;ly;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
nra;ayhk; vd;W Nfl;ljw;F M[u; vjpup jd;
ifapy; itj;jpUe;j fj;jpahy; vd; mz;zd;
rhKNtiy njhz;ilf;Fopapy; Fj;jpdhu;. jw;rkak;
vd;dplk; fhl;lg;gLk; fj;jp jhd; me;j fj;jp
MFk;. me;j fj;jp Vw;fdNt rh.ngh.1 Mf FwpaPL
nra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ. vd; gf;fj;J tPlb ; y; trpf;Fk;
Kdpak;kh vd;gtu; te;J M[u; vjpupia
Vd; ,g;gb nra;fpwha; vd;W Nfl;ljw;F M[u;
vjpup Kdpak;khspd; ,lJ ifapy; mNj fj;jpahy;
Fj;jp fhag;gLj;jptpl;lhu;. mg;NghJ vd; mz;zd;
rhKNtiy J}f;fpnfhz;L NghFk; NghJ
uhkfpU~;zd; vd;gtu; te;J M[u; vjpupia Vd;
mbj;jha; vd;W Nfl;ljw;F mtiu tyJ fhypy;
fj;jpahy; Fj;jp M[u; vjpup fhag;gLj;jptpl;lhu;.
gpd;du; vd; mz;zd; rhKNtiy Mrph;thjk;>
MWKfk;> uhkfpU~;zDk; kzNky;Fb
kUj;Jtkidf;F nfhz;L nrd;whh;fs;.”
11.Thus, it is clear that P.W.4 was teased by the accused,
and this was informed to the deceased by P.W.4. Therefore, on the
date of occurrence, the deceased went to the house of the accused
and questioned him about the same. Immediately, the accused
stabbed the deceased in the throat. When the neighbour, one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
Mariammal, attempted to prevent the accused, he also stabbed her on
the left hand wrist. When one Ramakrishnan chased him, the
accused stabbed him on his right leg.
12.Immediately, the injured as well as the deceased were
taken to hospital. The wound certificates of the injured witnesses
were marked as Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14. Both Ex.P.13 and Ex.P.14
reveal that one Muniyammal sustained injuries on her left hand wrist
and Ramakrishnan sustained injuries on his right knee. Both injuries
were declared to be simple in nature. They were not examined by the
prosecution for the simple reason that the trial commenced 29 years
after the date of occurrence. While the accused was released on bail,
he escaped from the clutches of law. Therefore, the respondent could
not ascertain the whereabouts of the accused.
13.Only in the year 2018, he was arrested and subjected for
Trial. Therefore, the non-examination of the injured witnesses is not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
fatal to the case of the prosecution, as the eyewitnesses deposed
cogently and were found to be trustworthy. Further, it is admitted
that when the deceased came to the house of the accused to question
him about the teasing, the accused stabbed him in the throat with a
pen knife. Fishermen normally possess pen knives for fishing
purposes. Therefore, it must be considered whether the accused had
the intention to do away with the life of the deceased with a motive.
14.The accused had absolutely no motive to do away with
the life of the deceased and also no intention to do away with his
life. The deceased himself invited the problem and all of a sudden,
the accused stabbed him with a pen knife.
15.Now, the point for consideration is whether the
prosecution proved the charge under Section 302 of IPC or not.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
16.In order to prove the charge under Section 302 of IPC,
the prosecution shall prove that the death is caused with an intention
of causing death or if it is done with an intention of causing such
bodily injury as the offender known to be likely to cause the death of
the person to whom the harm is caused, or 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 if the person committing the act known 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. However, the exception 4 says that
culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden
quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or
acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Further, it is immaterial in such
cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
In order to attract 4th exception of Section 300 of IPC, the necessary
ingredients are a sudden fight, absence of premeditation, no undue
advantage or cruel or unusual act on the part of the offender. These
conditions have to be fulfilled to attract the exemption 4 of section
300 of IPC.
17.It is relevant to extract the fourth exception of Section
300 of IPC:-
“4thly. - 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.”
18.In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellants relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of Anbazhagan vs. The state represented
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
by the Inspector of Police reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 550. The
relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:-
“60(12). In determining the questin, whether
an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a
case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and
that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death, the fact that the act is done without
premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the
circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or
unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury,
would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the
offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the
IPC.”
19.Thus, it is clear that when an accused had done the act
without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, it would attract
charge under Section 304 Part II of IPC. In the case on hand, the
prosecution miserably 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
20.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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
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.”
21.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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
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
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
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-
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.”
22.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 the IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
23.Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on
the appellant for the offence 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.
24.In view of the above, the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant in S.C.No.36 of 2019, dated 27.01.2021,
on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Pudukkottai, 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 ten years Rigorous
Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo
one year Rigorous Imprisonment. The conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant for the offence punishable under Section
324 of I.P.C is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
25.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
per Section 428 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
[G.K.I.J.,] & [R.P.J.,]
19.02.2026
NCC :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes
ps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Pudukkottai.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Manamelkudi Police Station,
Pudukkottai District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
AND
R. POORNIMA, J.
ps
19.02.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 05/03/2026 01:17:46 pm )
