BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 15/3/2006
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.E.N.PATRUDU
Criminal Appeal(MD) No.958 of 2002
K.Kuttai Sekar .. Appellant
vs.
State of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by Inspector of Police,
Paramakudi Town Police Station
Cr.No.296 of 2000 .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure preferred
against the Judgment dated 15.2.2002 made in S.C.No.88/2001 by the Court of
Additional Sessions Fast Track Judge, Ramanathapuram.
!For appellant ... Mr.A.P.Muthupandian
^For respondent ... Mr.K.Radhakrishnan,
Addil.Public Prosecutor
:JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by M.E.N.PATRUDU, J)
The appeal arises from the Judgment dated 15.2.2002 rendered in S.C.No.88
of 2001 by the Court of Additional Sessions Fast Track Judge at Ramanathapuram.
The learned Addl.Sessions Judge convicted the sole appellant for an offence
under Section 302 and 341 of the IPC and awarded life sentence and a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:
Marimuthu, the deceased and the accused/appellant are friends and the
accused is a rickshaw puller. There was some quarrel between them at Paramakudi
river bridge and the deceased bate the accused. The appellant borne grudge and
on the next day i.e. On 16.5.2000, the appellant found the deceased standing in
front of PW.2’s mobile fruit shop and went there and picked a knife from PW.2’S
fruit shop and attempted to hit the deceased and due to intervention of PW.2, he
could not and little later beat the deceased on the left chest with the knife
taken out from mutton shop and ran away. The wife of the deceased, viz., PW.1
lodged a complaint with the police and an F.I.R. was registered in Crime No.296
of 2000 and after due investigation charge sheet was laid.
3. During the course of trial PW.1 to PW.13 were examined and Exs.P1 to
P13 and M.Os.1 to 7 have been marked on the side of the prosecution. However,
no one was was examined on the side of the accused and no exhibits were also
marked.
4. The Post-mortem Doctor (PW.4) opined that the
deceased died due to shock and haemarrage due to the injuries to vital organs
i.e. Heart and lungs. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge convicted the appellant.
5. Learned counsel for appellant Mr.A.P.Muthupandian very fairly stated
that he is not arguing for a clean acquittal of the case of the accused because
the evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellant beat the deceased
but it is without any intention, without any pre-plan, and it is purely because
of petty quarrel of the previous day and the incident is without any pre-
meditation.
6. Further, learned counsel for the appellant argued for mercy and fairly
submitted that this case is squarely falling under section 304(ii) of the IPC
and the appellant has been in jail for the past four years and hence the same
may be considered.
7. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor, however, strongly opposed. Perused the
evidence on record.
8. We are in complete agreement with the argument of
the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Our attention has been drawn
to various portions of the evidence of the witnesses. In our considered
opinion, the evidence of the prosecution witness is trustworthy. Therefore, we
hold that the death is of the homicide and it is due to the injuries caused by
the appellant.
9. Now, it has to be considered whether the appellant had any intention to
cause such injury and had any knowledge that such injury would lead to the death
of the deceased?
10. The evidence clearly establishes that on 16.5.2000 at about 10.00a.m.,
the appellant found the deceased standing near PW.2’s fruit shop and
immediately, he took out the knife from PW.2’s fruit shop and tried to attack
the deceased and due to intervention of PW.2 and PW.3, the problem was subsided
but the appellant, thereafter, took out a knife from mutton stall in front of
shop No.56 and inflicted injury on the left side of the chest. Thus, the
evidence is establishing that the appellant has inflicted injury on the chest.
But, the fact is that the appellant was not carrying any knife with him. If he
had an intention to kill the deceased, he would have planned straight away and
complete the offence. But, on the other, the appellant attacked the deceased at
10.00a.m. in front of many people and it is purely because the previous day’s
quarrel. Therefore, the appellant suddenly attacked the deceased and it is
without any intention.
11. We hold that we agree with the contention that the offence of the case
does not attract either Section 302 IPC or Section 341 IPC but it is a clear
case attracting Section 304(ii) of the IPC as the appellant inflicted injury on
the chest, which is the vital part of the body and the deceased died due to such
injury.
12. Under the above facts and circumstances, we hold that the case of the
prosecution is established but the conviction under Section 302 read with 341 of
the IPC is to be modified to one of Section 304(ii) and the sentence of
imprisonment for life is to be reduced to a sentence of six years.
13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the
conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the IPC is modified into one under
Section 304(ii) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for
six years.
asvm
To
1. The Additional Sessions Fast Track Judge,
Ramanathapuram.
2. Inspector of Police,
Paramakudi Town Police Station
Cr.No.296/2000