[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
T.Veerasamy vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 March, 2026
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl. A(MD)No.566 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 09.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl. A(MD)No.566 of 2023
T.Veerasamy : Appellant(s)
Vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Naducauvery Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
Cr.No.33/2019. : Respondent(s)
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 05.10.2021 in S.C.No.
278 of 2019 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur and
set aside the same as illegal and acquit the appellant from all charges
leveled against him.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Muthumani
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/17
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
Crl. A(MD)No.566 of 2023
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was
delivered by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J)
The sole accused assails the judgment of the Principal Sessions
Judge, Thanjavur, made in S.C.No.278 of 2019 dated 05.10.2021,
wherein the appellant was found guilty for offence under Section 302 of
IPC and was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of
Rs.4,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment and
was also found guilty for offence under Section 506 Part II of IPC and
sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine
of Rs.1,000, in default to undergo one month simple imprisonment. The
sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The case of the prosecution is that PW1 had two brothers and
one sister and the deceased Kannan @ Kannayan is the younger brother.
On 24.03.2019 at about 4.00 PM, the deceased came to the house of PW1
and took food and went to the house of the accused in a two wheeler.
There was a wordy quarrel between the deceased and accused and the
accused seems to have questioned the deceased as to why the food was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
not tasty. All of a sudden the accused person is said to have gone into the
house and brought a billhook (M.O.1) and attacked the deceased in his
head, cheek and hand. The deceased succumbed to the injuries.
3. PW1 went to the Naducauvery Police Station on 25.03.2019
morning and informed about the incident which was reduced to writing
(Ex.P1). Based on the same, an FIR came to be registered under Ex.P12
in Crime No.33 of 2019 for offence under Sections 302 and 506 Part II of
IPC.
4. The investigation was taken up by PW12 and he sent the express
FIR along with the statement of the complaint to the Judicial Magistrate,
Thiruvayaru. PW12 came to the scene of occurrence on 25.03.2019 at
about 1.30 PM and prepared the Observation Mahazar (Ex.P14) and the
Rough Sketch (Ex.P13). In the presence of witnesses PW12 seized MO2
to MO4 under Ex.P2 Seizure Mahazar.
5. PW12 thereafter went to the hospital and conducted the inquest
on the dead body of the deceased from 3.30 PM to 4.30 PM in the
presence of witnesses and prepared Ex.P15 Inquest Report. After
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
completion of inquest the dead body was handed over to PW9 Head
Constable.
6. PW7 conducted the postmortem and issued the Postmortem
Certificate (Ex.P9) by recording the following external and internal
injuries on the dead body:
“1) An oblique gaping heavy cut injury of size 9 cm x 2 cm x
bone depth noted over right side check. It cuts the underlying
soft tissue, vessels, nerves and bones. The tailing mark noted
over inner aspect of wound
2) An oblique heavy cut injury of size 8 cm x 2cm x bone
depth noted over left parictal region.
3) An oblique heavy cut injury of size 9 cm x 5 cm x bone
depth noted over le?t parictal region. It lies 2 cm below injury
No. 2.
4) An oblique heavy cut injury of size 14 cm x 1.5 cm x bone
depth noted over left occipital region. It lies 3 cm below
injury. No.3.
5) A horizontal gapping heavy cut injury of size 10 cm, 3 cm
x bone depth noted over occipital region at the level of
external occipital protuberance. It lies 3 cm below injury No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
6) An oblique gapping heavy cut injury of size 10 cm x 3 cm
x bone depth noted over dorsum of left hand at the level of
left middle finger with fracture and dislocation of 3rd
metacarpal bone noted.
7) An oblique gaping cut injury of size 3 cm x 2 cm x bone
depth noted over left ring finger with fracture & dislocation
of phalanges noted.
8) An oblique cut injury of size 2 cm x 1 cm x bone depth
noted over dorsum of left index finger.
9) An oblique cut injury of size 2 cm x 1 cm x bone depth
noted over dorsum of left index finger.
10) Multiple ant bite marks noted over right upper limb, front
of left side of abdomen, front of riglit thigh, front and back
upper 1/3rd of left thigh, front of left leg and external
genitalia.
ON DISSECTION OF CRANIAL CAVITY:.
Diffuse scalp contusion noted over entire scalp. Cut fracture
of size 5 cm x 2 cm noted over right occipital bone. Fissure
fracture & cm in length noted over left temporo- parietal
bones and 12 cm in length noted over fronto-parieto-occipital
bones. Right temporalis muscle found to contused. Brain
found to be edematous, diffuse subdural and subarachnoid
hemorthage noted over surface of cerebrum and cerebellum:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
Fissure fracture 4 cm and 3 cm length & elevated fracture 16
cm x 2 cm in size noted over posterior cranial fossa.”
7. The final opinion was given to the effect that the deceased
would appear to have died due to shock and hemorrhage.
8. The investigation officer recorded the statement of the witnesses
under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., and collected all the materials. The accused
person was also arrested in the course of investigation and based on his
confession, MO1 was seized under Ex.P6 Seizure Mahazar. On
completion of investigation, the police report was laid before the Judicial
Magistrate, Thiruvayaru. The Judicial Magistrate after issuing copies
under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., committed the case and it was taken on file
by the Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in S.C. No.278 of 2019.
9. The trial court framed charges for offences under Sections 302
and 506 Part II of IPC and the accused person denied the charges.
10. The prosecution examined PW1 to PW12 and marked Ex.P1 to
Ex.P19 and also relied upon MO1 to MO6.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
11. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was
questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., regarding the incriminating
circumstances and evidence and he denied them as false.
12. The accused person did not examine any witnesses nor did he
rely upon any exhibits.
13. The trial court on considering the facts and circumstances of
the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to
the conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond
reasonable doubt and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the accused
person in the manner stated supra. Aggrieved by the same, the present
appeal has been filed before this Court.
14. This Court carefully considered the submissions made on
either side and the materials available on record.
15. The evidence of PW1 to PW3 has a lot of significance in this
case since these three witnesses were examined as eyewitnesses. PW1
was the uncle of the accused person. He has stated that he saw the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
accused and the deceased involved in a wordy quarrel with respect to the
food that was served to the accused person and when an attempt was
made to console the parties, the accused person is said to have attacked
the deceased with MO1 and also threatened PW1.
16. PW2 is the son of PW1 and he has also reiterated the same
facts.
17. PW3 is the son of the accused person. His evidence is also in
line with the evidence of PW1 and PW2. The eyewitness account of PW1
to PW3 has not been discredited in the cross examination and there is
absolutely no reason to disbelieve the same. The ocular evidence of PW1
to PW3 is also supported by the evidence of the doctor who conducted
the postmortem and recorded the injuries in the Postmortem Certificate.
18. The discrepancies that were pointed out by the learned counsel
for the appellant does not in any way take away the weightage of the
evidence of PW1 to PW3.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
19. The next issue that was put forth by the learned counsel for the
appellant is that the entire incident had taken place in the spur of the
moment after a wordy quarrel and therefore, the case can be brought
under Section 304 of IPC. As stated supra, PW1 to PW3 have explained
the manner in which the incident took place. It all started with a minor
wordy quarrel based on the taste of the food that was served to the
accused person. This wordy quarrel developed and in the spur of the
moment the accused person lost his cool and attacked the deceased with
MO1, which was available in the house.
20. In the considered view of this Court, the facts of the present
case can be brought within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. There was
no premeditation on the part of the accused person to commit the murder
of the deceased. There was a sudden fight and in the heat of passion upon
a sudden quarrel, the accused attacked the deceased with MO1.
21. It will be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Apex
Court in Atul Thakur v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2018)
2 SCC 496, wherein the Apex Court held that the weapon used and the
number of injuries sustained by itself will not disentitle extending
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. The relevant portions are extracted
hereunder:
“12. Taking overall view of the matter, the facts of the
present case warrant invocation of Exception 4 to Section 300
of IPC. For, it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder inasmuch as the incident happened on account of
sudden fight between the friends who had gathered for a drink
party arranged at the behest of Hitesh Thakur. There was no
pre-mediation and the act done by the appellant was in the heat
of passion without the appellant taking any undue advantage or
acted in a cruel manner. The number of wounds caused by the
appellant, it is a well established position, by itself cannot be a
decisive factor. The High Court committed manifest error in
being influenced by the said fact. What is relevant is that the
occurrence was sudden and not premeditated and the offender
acted in the heat of passion. The evidence supports the case of
the appellant in this behalf. The fact that the appellant used
weapon such as knife, is also not a decisive factor to attract
Section 302 of IPC. Neither the use of a knife in the
commission of offence nor the factum of multiple injuries
given by the appellant would deny the appellant of the benefit
of Exception 4.
13. Dealing with a somewhat similar situation, in the
case of Surain Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1 , this Court has
restated the settled legal position about the purport of
Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. Even in that case, the
accused had repeatedly assaulted the deceased with a Kirpan
and caused injuries resulting into death. After restating the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
legal position, the Court converted the offence to one under
Section 304 Part-II instead of Section 302 IPC. Following the
same legal principle and keeping in mind the factual position
as unfolded, the view taken by the Trial Court of convicting
the appellant for offence punishable under Section 304 Part-II,
is unexceptionable. The Trial Court had observed thus:
“60. The evidence placed on record by
the prosecution, reveals that deceased Hitesh
and the accused were having cordial relations
since long, knowing to each other and were
good friends. A party was organized by the
deceased in the room of accused Mukesh and
deceased himself invited all the accused to
attend the party. In this party, large quantity of
alcohol was consumed by them and suddenly
an altercation took place between deceased
Hitesh and accused Atul Thakur as a result of
which accused Atul stabbed Hitesh, which
resulted into his death……
61. There is no doubt that Hitesh met a
homicidal death on the night intervening
27/28.07/2011 at IGMC, Shimla consequent to
stab injury inflicted by accused Atul Thakur.
The queston which arises for consideration is
whether this action of the accused which
caused the death of Hitesh would amount to
murder or culpable homicide not amounting to
murder. It is an admitted fact that there was no
enmity between the deceased and this accused
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
rather they were having cordial relations. The
fact that there was a physical fight between the
deceased and the accused Atul, cannot be
denied because it has come in the evidence of
PW-11 Himanshu, PW-12 Manoj Bansal and
PW-1 Ashutosh that a physical fight has taken
place between them. In these circumstances,
this Court will have to examine the prosecution
evidence whether the accused Atul had taken
an undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
inimical manner so as to deprive him of the
benefit of exception 4 of Section 300. In fact,
the prosecution could not prove any motive for
killing the deceased by the accused. The
drinking session in the room of the accused
Mukesh Thakur was by mutual consent. From
these circumstances, it can be held that the
incident in question took place in a sudden
fight in the heat of possession. The next
question which arises for consideration is
whether the accused Atul did take an undue
advantage of the said fight or acted in a cruel
or inimical manner. Keeping in view the fact
that both the deceased and accused had
consumed considerable amount of alcohol
which is established from the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses, it cannot be altogether
ruled out that the stab injuries inflicted were
not with an intention of taking undue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
advantage by the accused Atul. It is probable
that in an inebriated condition the accused
inflicted the injuries because of the physical
fight between them. Moreover, keeping in
view the nature of the injuries noticed by Dr.
Sandeep Kaushik in the MLC Ext. PW-18/A, it
is difficult to accept the accused Atul Thakur
intended to cause the death of Hitesh or that
the injuries were so dangerous that they would
in all probability, cause death. Nevertheless,
the injuries were quite serious, the accused can
surely by credited with the knowledge that if
an injury is caused with a knife on the chest or
abdomen of a person then this act is likely to
cause the death of the victim.
62. Having considered the material on
record this Court is of the opinion that the
accused Atul Thakur can only be found guilty
of an offence punishable under Section 304
Part II, Indian Penal Code.”
14. As aforesaid, the High Court overturned this finding
of the Trial Court on the question of nature of offence, by
mainly observing that the appellant had caused repeated blows
with a weapon like knife, causing six serious injuries to Hitesh
Thakur to which he succumbed. We are of the opinion that
neither the factum of use of knife by the appellant during the
assault nor the multiple blows (six) given by the appellant can
be the sole basis to deny the appellant of the benefit available
under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. The Court is obliged
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
to take an overall view of the matter on the basis of the
established facts. This principle is restated in Surain Singh’s
case (supra).
15. The next question is whether the appellant is right in
his persuasive argument to restore and revive the decision of
the Trial Court on the quantum of sentence. The Trial Court
awarded the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years
only for offence under Section 304 Part-II of IPC and fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment
for a further period of one year. For that no special reason has
been recorded by the Trial Court. Considering the nature of
offence and the trivial reason for which the appellant got
enraged and assaulted Hitesh Thakur, that too by a knife and
also gave multiple blows, does not warrant a light punishment.
We would, however, accept the argument of the respondents
that in the fact situation of the present case, the sentence period
should not be less than 10 years imprisonment with fine. That
would meet the ends of justice.”
22. The above judgment was followed by the Division Bench of
this Court in Thangapandi v. State, reported in MANU/TN/1594/2023.
23. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is inclined to
hold that the act of the appellant will not fall within the requirement of a
murder and it is only a culpable homicide not amounting to murder and
the case is brought within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
24. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the
conviction under Section 302 of IPC passed by the Principal Sessions
Judge, Thanjavur, in S.C.No.278 of 2019 dated 05.10.2021 is set aside
and modified into a conviction under Section 304 Part II of IPC. The
sentence of life imprisonment passed by the court below is set aside and
the appellant is sentenced to undergo four and half years rigorous
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo
six months simple imprisonment. The period of sentence already
undergone by the appellant shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.
as against the substantive sentence.
[N.A.V., J.] [P.D.B., J.]
09.03.2026
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
PKN
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur.
2.The Inspector of Police,
Naducauvery Police Station,
Thanjavur District.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
AND
P.DHANABAL, J.
PKN
Judgment made in
09.03.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/03/2026 01:07:59 pm )
