IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:20.02.2007
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.BALASUBRAMANIAN
&
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE PRABHA SRIDEVAN
CRL.APP.NO.986 OF 2005
Uthirasamy ..Appellant
Vs.
State represented by
Inspector of Police
Kolathur Police Station
Salem District ..Respondent
Prayer: Criminal appeal against the judgment dated
14.11.2005 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge,
Salem in S.C.No.250/2005.
For Appellant : Mr.K.V.Sridharan
For Respondent : Mr.N.R.Elango, APP
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the court was delivered by Justice R.Balasubramanian)
The appellant in this appeal stands convicted in
S.C.No.250/2005 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Salem
under sections 302, 307 and 324 I.P.C., for which, he stands
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a
fine of Rs.1,000/-, carrying a default sentence; seven years
rigorous imprisonment, together with a fine of Rs.1,000/-,
carrying a default sentence and six months simple
imprisonment respectively. Hence he is before this court in
this appeal challenging his conviction. Heard
Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor appearing for the State.
2. The prosecution case is that, at about 7.30 p.m on
14.01.2005, the accused, in the context of his prior enmity
with the victim, fatally attacked Ragupathi resulting in
his death and therefore triable under section 302 I.P.C. In
the course of the same transaction, when the witnesses
stepped in to intervene, he made an attempt on the life of
P.W.2 and attacked P.W.4 and therefore triable under
sections 307 and 324 I.P.C respectively. To prove their
case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21, besides marking
Exs.P.1 to P.33 and M.Os.1 to 18. The defence neither let
in any oral nor documentary evidence.
3. P.W.1 is a child witness. P.Ws.2 and 5 are the
mother and father of P.W.1. P.Ws.2 and 5 are working in
the agricultural land of Rakkiappa Gounder examined in this
case as P.W.4. They were lessees. At about 7.30 p.m on
14.01.2005 when P.W.2 was selling short eats opposite to her
house, P.W.1 and her younger sister were there taking some
eats provided to them by their mother. At that time the
deceased came there. P.W.2 asked the deceased as to
whether he would like to have some food, for which,
Ragupathy (since deceased) answered in the affirmative.
Accordingly, P.W.2 started serving some food to Ragupathi
(since deceased). At that time the accused came there and
called all of them to the temple. They answered saying that
as it is night time, P.W.1 and her younger sister would not
come with him to the temple. The accused did not keep
quiet but addressed P.W.2 stating that when she should serve
food to all sundries, why not she serve food to him also.
To this question, P.W.2 kept a total silence. Ragupathy
(since deceased), who was already there, told P.W.2 that
the accused is blabbering under the intoxication of liquor.
The accused was angered at this and immediately he went to
the land of P.W.4, from where, he came back with a knife and
cut Ragupathy on the rear side of his head. At that time
when P.W.2 asked the accused as to why he had done like
that, the accused responded by cutting P.W.2 on her right
hand and left side neck resulting in injuries to P.W.2.
P.W.4 also stepped in questioning the accused on his act.
The accused did not spare him also and cut him on his right
hand. P.W.2 escaped and entering the house of P.W.4, bolted
the door from inside. The accused challenged P.W.2 to come
out stating that he would not spare her life and saying so,
he kicked the door. Hearing the commotion, P.W.8 and others
came. P.W.4 asked the witnesses to tie the accused.
However the accused, criminally intimidating all the
witnesses for about ten minutes, made good his escape.
Thereafterwards, P.W.2, by opening the door, came out. All
the injured were taken to the hospital. On receipt of the
information, police arrived at the scene and by examining
P.W.1, recorded her statement. After reading it over to
her, her signature was obtained in it. Ex.P.1 is the said
complaint. P.W.1 was examined by the Magistrate under
section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Ex.P.2 is
the said statement.
4. P.W.2 is the mother of P.W.1 and wife of P.W.5. Her
evidence, on the assault perpetrated by the accused on
Ragupathi; the attack made on her life and the assault on
P.W.4 are on the same lines as spoken to by P.W.1. She
would identify M.Os.2 and 3 as the blood stained blouse and
blood stained saree, which she was wearing and they came to
be recovered under a mahazar. She was examined by the
Magistrate under section 164 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Ex.P.3 is her statement. M.O.1 is the weapon
used by the accused in inflicting injuries on Ragupathi
(since deceased) and P.W.2. P.W.3 is another child witness
and she is the younger sister of P.W.1 and daughter of
P.Ws.2 and 5. Her evidence on the material aspects of the
prosecution case is as spoken to by P.W.1. Ex.P.4 is her
statement recorded by the Judicial Magistrate under section
164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W.4 is the
landlord, in whose land P.Ws.2 and 5 are cultivating as
lessees. He is the grandfather of the deceased as well. He
found the accused and the deceased talking with each other
on the occurrence day evening and immediately the accused,
by picking up an aruval from the house of P.W.4, cut
Ragupathi on his head. Ragupathi, after receiving the
injury, ran to a distance and fell down. The accused had
also cut P.Ws.2 and 4. M.O.1 is the weapon used by the
accused. Ex.P.5 is the statement recorded by the Magistrate
under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. P.W.5
is the husband of P.W.2 and father of P.Ws.1 and 3. He had
only heard a commotion and then saw the accused making good
his escape with the weapon of offence towards south. He
witnessed the recovery of M.Os.2 and 3 under Ex.P.6. Ex.P.7
is his statement recorded by the Magistrate under section
164 of the Code. M.O.1 is the weapon used by the accused.
P.W.6 is another witness, who, after hearing a commotion in
the garden land of P.W.4, went to the crime scene, where, he
found the accused challenging P.W.2 to come out of the house
stating that he would not spare her life. Though P.W.4
tried to cool down the accused, yet, the accused proceeded
to break open the door of P.W.4’s house. P.W.4 asked the
witnesses to tie the accused and on seeing the crowd, the
accused made good his escape. Ex.P.8 is his statement
recorded by the Magistrate under section 164 of the Code.
P.W.7 is the wife of the deceased. When she was returning
from the temple on the occurrence day evening, she heard a
commotion in the garden land of P.W.4. When she turned that
side, she found the accused kicking the door of P.W.4’s
house. Shouting that he would not spare Gunavathi/P.W.2,
who was already inside the house, from being killed, the
accused made good his escape. P.W.8 was also returning
from the temple on the occurrence day evening and he noticed
the accused armed with a weapon banging the house door of
P.W.4 stating that if Gunavathi (P.W.2) comes out, he would
kill her. On noticing the crowd gathering, the accused made
good his escape.
5. P.W.20 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the
Investigating Police Station. At about 8.00 p.m on
14.01.2005, a person, without disclosing his identity,
telephoned to him that the accused had murdered Raghupathy;
attacked Gunavathi (P.W.2) and Rakkiappa Gounder (P.W.4).
He made an entry in the general diary and then he proceeded
to the crime scene accompanied by a police constable. He
verified from the crime scene whether the information
received by him is correct. Then by examining P.W.1, he
recorded her statement. He came back to the police station
and recorded that complaint as Ex.P.1 in Crime No.9/2005
under sections 302, 307 and 324 I.P.C. Ex.P.30 is the
printed first information report. He sent the express
records to the court as well as to the higher officials.
P.W.21 is the Investigating Officer, who received the
express records registered by P.W.20. He reached the crime
scene at 00.45 a.m on 15.01.2005 i.e., on the intervening
night of 14.01.2005 and 15.02.2005 and in the presence of
witnesses, he prepared Ex.P.31, the rough sketch. From 2.15
a.m till 7.15 a.m., he conducted inquest over the dead body
in the presence of panchayatdars and witnesses. Ex.P.32 is
the inquest report. Then he sent the dead body with a
requisition to the hospital for post mortem. During
inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 3, 4, 5 and others by recording
their statements. He sent P.W.4 with a police medical memo
to the Government Hospital at Mettur for treatment. At 7.20
a.m., from the place where the dead body was found lying, he
recovered M.O.14 under a mahazar. At 8.00 a.m., from the
place where Ragupathi came to be attacked, he recovered
blood stained earth, sample earth and blood stained stone
under a mahazar attested by the same witnesses. At 8.30
a.m., from opposite to the house of P.W.2, he recovered
blood stained earth and sample earth under a mahazar. At
8.45 a.m., from near the house of P.W.4, he recovered blood
stained earth and sample earth under a mahazar. By using a
swab, he collected blood from the wound of P.W.4. He
proceeded to the hospital by 12.00 noon and by examining
P.W.2, he recorded her statement. He recovered a blood
stained blouse and saree produced by her at that time in the
presence of witnesses under a mahazar. All the case
properties were sent to the court with a requisition to
subject the same for chemical examination.
6. P.W.9 is the constable, who accompanied P.W.2 to the
Government Hospital at Mettur for treatment. He observed
the dead body of Ragupathi in the hospital. P.W.10 is the
auto driver, in whose autorickshaw P.W.2 was taken to the
Government Hospital at Mettur by P.W.9 and another. P.W.11
was the President of Chitrapatti Village Panchayat. On the
morning of 17.01.2005, the accused appeared before him and
confessed that he murdered Raghupathi at about 7.30 p.m on
14.01.2005 and also attacked Gunavathi and Rakkiappan
(P.Ws.2 and 4), who tried to intervene. The accused also
confessed that he had screened himself in the nearby hilly
area; he came to know that Raghupathi is dead; going by his
conscience and fearing police torture, he had appeared
before P.W.11. On that, P.W.11 gave his report (Ex.P.9) to
the Inspector of Police. He also witnessed the arrest of
the accused and recording of his statement, the admissible
portion of which is Ex.P.10.
7. P.W.12 is the duty Doctor in the Government Hospital
at Salem. P.W.2 was referred to that hospital from the
hospital at Mettur. P.W.2 was brought by P.W.9. He
examined her and admitted her as an in-patient. Ex.P.11 is
the accident register. Ex.P.12 is the accident register
issued by the Government Hospital at Mettur. She got
discharged against medical advice. P.W.13 is the duty
medical officer in the Government Hospital at Mettur. At
11.00 or 11.30 a.m on 15.01.2005, P.W.4 appeared before him
with a medical memo for injuries shown to have been
sustained by him at 7.30 p.m on 14.01.2005. Ex.P.13 is the
wound certificate issued by him. P.W.14 is another duty
Doctor in the Government Hospital at Salem, before whom,
P.Ws.1 and 3 were brought for examination as to whether they
have reached the age of understanding things. He found both
of them to be competent to understand what is happening
around them. Ex.P.14 is the certificate issued by him for
P.W.3 and Ex.P.15 is the certificate issued by him for
P.W.1. P.W.15 is the duty Doctor, who, on receipt of
Ex.P.16 (requisition) and the dead body, commenced post
mortem on the dead body at 2.15 p.m on 15.01.2005. During
post mortem, he found various symptoms as noted by him in
Ex.P.17, the post mortem report. The symptoms noted by him
are as hereunder:
“Injuries:
1) Abrasion on left deltoid region 7.5 x 0.5 cms.
2) Gapping curved cut injury of right tempro parieto
occipital region of scalp 20 x 4 x 3.5 cms cavity deep.
3) Cut fracture of right tempro parietal bone 18 x 3 cms
cavity deep.
4) Cut injury of dura torn 4 x 3 cms.
5) Cut injury on brain 4 x 3.5 cms on right temporal lobe.
6) Fracture of right zygoma present.
7) Sub-dural and sub-arachnoid haemorrhage over the right
temporal cerebral hemisphere of brain (antimortem).
Heart: Chambers and valves normal. Cavities
empty. Coronary Vessels: Patent. Great Vessels:
Normal. Lungs: Both on C/s pale. Hyoid bone:
Intact. Stomach: Contained 300 gms of partly
digested cooked food with no specific smell.
Mucosa pale. Small intestine: Yellowish chyme.
No specific smell. Mucosa pale. Liver, Spleen
and Kidneys: All are C/s pale. Bladder: Empty.
Pelvis, Membranes spinal column: All are
intact.”
Doctor opined that death would have occurred 12 to 24 hours
prior to autopsy as a result of shock and haemorrhage due to
head injuries. A weapon like M.O.1 could have caused the
injuries noted by him on the dead body.
8. P.W.21 continued his investigation further by
examining witnesses and recorded their statements. P.W.11
produced the accused before him on 17.01.2005 with his
report. P.W.21 examined the accused at that time and the
accused gave a voluntary confession statement. Ex.P.10 is
the admissible portion of the confession statement of the
accused. Pursuant to the same, various incriminating
objects came to be recovered at his instance. The case
properties and the accused were brought to the police
station. Then, the accused was sent for judicial remand and
the case properties were sent to the court with a
requisition to subject the same for chemical examination.
P.W.16 is the Assistant Engineer of Tamil Nadu Electricity
Board during the relevant time and in-charge of the
occurrence village. He would depose that from 6.00 p.m on
14.01.2005 till 6.00 a.m on 15.01.2005, there was no power
disruption. Ex.P.18 is the report given by him. Ex.P.19 is
the copy of another official record to show that there was
continuous power supply. P.W.17 witnessed the preparation
of Ex.P.20, the observation mahazar; recovery of M.Os.4 and
5 under Ex.P.21; recovery of M.Os.6 and 7 under Ex.P.22;
recovery of M.Os.8 and 9 under Ex.P.23 and recovery of
M.Os.10 and 11 under Ex.P.24 as already spoken to by P.W.21.
P.W.18 witnessed the examination of the accused; recording
his confession statement, the admissible portion of which is
Ex.P.10 and recovery of M.Os.1, 12 and 13 under Ex.P.25 as
already spoken to by P.W.21. P.W.19 is the court staff, who
speaks about the receipt of the case properties along with
Ex.P.26 (requisition) given by the Inspector of Police. As
an enclosure to Ex.P.27, the case properties were sent to
the laboratory. Ex.P.28 is the serologist’s report. The
constable present during post mortem removed M.Os.15 to 18
from the dead body and handed over the same to the
Investigating Officer, who recovered the same under Form 95.
After completing the investigation, P.W.21 filed the final
report in court against the accused on 14.02.2005 under
sections 302, 307 and 324 I.P.C.
9. When the accused was questioned under section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the
incriminating materials made available against him, though
he denied the materials placed against him as false and
contrary to facts, yet, in the written statement filed by
him, he had admitted his involvement but explained his act
as due to provocation. We summarise hereunder the contents
of his written statement:
“On the occurrence day night when I was on
my way to the house, I noticed P.W.2’s children
taking some food outside P.W.2’s house; therefore
I also went there; as I was talking to P.W.2 and
others, the deceased sarcastically commented that
I am blabbering under the intoxication of
liquor; out of anger, I took a weapon lying
nearby and cut Ragupathi; the nearby persons also
received injuries; I went home; my house door
was broke open; I was pulled out and lodged in
the prison; I have no enmity with the deceased; I
had never any intention to kill him; even on the
occurrence day, the deceased called me as a deaf
person blabbering under the intoxication of
liquor; therefore, in a fit of anger, I attacked
him; I have no enmity against P.Ws.2 and 4; I had
no intention to injure them; during the
occurrence time, I was aged 38 years; a coconut
fell from the tree on my head four or five years
before, affecting my hearing ability to a
considerable extent; the deceased is my neighbour
in residence; whenever people from outside the
village had visited my house proposing their
daughter in marriage to me, the deceased had
always told them very bad about me saying that I
am deaf, a crack and a mentally sick person;
therefore they could not give their daughter in
marriage to me; because of the abuses of the
deceased, nobody came forward to give their
daughter in marriage to me; the deceased was
behaving like this for several years by telling
those who come to my house and thus prevented my
marriage from taking place; on the occurrence
day, I had taken liquor and when the deceased
called me as a deaf person blabbering under the
intoxication of liquor, I was annoyed and
therefore I cut him.”
Written argument was filed on behalf of the accused before
the lower court and in the written argument also, the
accused had pleaded not only the facts as narrated by him in
the written statement but also pleaded that his act may fall
under section 304-II I.P.C as far as the death of Raghupathi
is concerned.
10. Mr.K.V.Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, going by the written statement of the accused
filed at the end of his questioning and the written argument
filed on his behalf by his counsel before the lower court,
would fairly state that he is confining his argument only to
the extent of brining the act of the accused under
Exception 1 to section 300 I.P.C. In other words, learned
counsel for the appellant is not disputing his client’s
involvement in the crime. Appreciating the fairness in the
submission made by the learned counsel as stated above,
which would save a lot of judicial time, we proceed to
analyse the case only from the angle argued by the learned
counsel for the appellant. Before doing that, we conclude
that the medical evidence available in this case establishes
beyond doubt that death of Raghupathi is due to homicidal
violence, the accused made an attempt on the life of P.W.2
and P.W.4 sustained simple hurt at the hands of the accused.
The sheet anchor of the submission made on behalf of the
accused to bring his act under Exception 1 to section 300
I.P.C is the continuous nagging and harassment by the
deceased in sarcastically commenting the accused in his
various facets of life. The sum and substance of the
defence is that the deceased, at all times, used to make fun
of the accused describing him as a deaf person; whenever a
chance arises, he would call him as a drunkard and the
deceased was putting a spoke in the accused getting married
by telling all those who come to see the groom namely, the
accused, in his house that the accused is a man of bad
character; a deaf person; a drunkard and he is having
connection with innumerable women. This is the stand of the
accused in his written statement filed as well as in the
written argument.
11. Let us now find out whether this stand of the
detenu is supported by evidence on record. P.W.21 is the
Investigating Officer. He was cross examined by the defence
with reference to the statements of witnesses given earlier
during investigation. He had categorically admitted in such
cross examination as hereunder:
“P.W.5 during investigation stated that the
accused told him that he is yet to be married; his
marriage getting postponed is solely due to the
deceased in this case; the accused also told P.W.5
that whenever the bride’s family came to his house
to see him, the deceased had prevented the
marriage being put through by telling the bride’s
family that the accused is a deaf person and that
he is short of hearing. P.W.6, during
investigation, had stated that the accused
complained to him that he is not getting married
and in all the places where brides are available,
they refused to give him their daughter and
Raghupathi – since deceased is solely responsible
for this. P.W.6 had also stated during
investigation that the accused told him that
Raghupathi is carrying tales to the brides’ family
about the accused by telling them that he is deaf
and that he cannot hear. P.W.7 is none else than
the wife of the deceased. She had also stated
during investigation that the accused told her
that whenever bride’s family came to his house for
fixing him as the groom, the deceased had always
condemned the accused as the person of bad
character, a deaf person, drunkard and he has
illicit intimacy with all the girls coming for
coolie work; he is a crack and so saying, his
marriage proposals were thwarted. P.W.8 had also
disclosed during investigation that the accused
was lamenting that he is not getting married and
the cause is Raghupathi telling everybody that the
accused is deaf, mad, drunkard and that he is
having illicit affairs with all ladies who come
for coolie work.”
Therefore, even during investigation, the above referred to
witnesses disclosed that the accused was having a grouse
against the deceased that he is the one who stands in
between the accused and his proposed marriage.
12. We looked at the evidence of the witnesses. P.W.5
in his cross examination had admitted that he had given such
a statement as elicited in the cross examination of P.W.21.
P.W.7 had also admitted such a statement having been given
by her during investigation. P.W.8 also had admitted that
he had given such a statement. Therefore we have no doubt
at all that the accused might have had constant strain and
tension in his mind that he would not get married solely due
to the questionable activities of the deceased describing
the accused as a person of bad character with a disability
and not a fit one to get married. Even at the occurrence
time when the accused was addressing P.W.2 that when she can
serve food to all sundries why not she serve food to him,
the deceased immediately stated to P.W.2 as hereunder:
“The deaf person is blabbering under intoxication of
liquor.”
In the context of the other materials available on record,
this statement made by the deceased at the time of
occurrence is definitely meant only for the accused and
cannot be for anybody else. P.W.1’s evidence is that,
immediately the accused was angered and attacked him by
picking up the weapon available in P.W.4’s land. P.W.2’s
evidence is also on the same lines. P.W.2’s evidence as to
what the deceased stated at that time is as spoken to by
P.W.1. So is the statement of P.W.3. Therefore it is clear
that the accused not only had a sudden provocation just at
the nick of time when he committed the crime but he was also
having a sustained provocation for a long time. A Division
Bench of this court in the judgment reported in 1972
L.W.Crl.Pg.34 (Vadivel Padayachi In re.) had laid down very
clearly as to what should be the approach of the court in a
given case, if provocation is put up as the defence and it
is as follows:
“A hyper-sensitive person, who loses his
power of self-control at the slightest provocation
would not be entitled to the benefit of the
Exception to section 300 I.P.C. Deprivation of
the power of self-control must be the result of
provocation, which is both sudden and grave.
Provocation is an external atimulus which can be
objectively gauged. But, loss of self-control is
a subjective phenomenon which is difficult to
divine. To peep into the mind of the accused as
it was at the relevant time is seldom possible.
The state of his mind can only be inferred from
the surrounding circumstances, from the manner in
which he reacted to the circumstances, and most
important of all, from his own description of the
state of his mind. His description of his
subjective condition may be true or false, but the
truth or falsity of his description is fortunately
susceptible of verification with reference to
relevant objective facts. Before embarking upon
the process of such verification, the court must
imaginatively reconstruct the psychological
situation in which the accused found himself
whilst he committed the crime in question and
judge his behaviour unhampered by any inflexible
rule of thumb.”
13. With great respect and without any hesitation, we
subscribe our view to the above proposition of law. As said
by the Hon’ble Judges, it would be impossible for any court
or even for any human being to read the mind of another
human being. The argument advanced by Mr.N.R.Elango learned
Additional Public Prosecutor that on the established facts
as stated above namely, the deceased always nagging the
accused on all possible occasions by describing him as
stated earlier would not be sufficient to constitute either
sudden or sustained provocation and therefore the benefit of
Exception 1 to section 300 I.P.C cannot be given to the
accused, does not really appeal to us at all, if we consider
his argument in the light of the judgment of this court
referred to supra. As said in the judgment, we are also of
the view that it would be impossible to read the human
mind. It is impossible to judge as to how one would act
and respond to a given situation and it is not possible to
catalogue the circumstances, which alone would constitute
sudden or sustained provocation as it would depend on facts
available in each case. The argument of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor that it is not as though the
deceased made character assassination of the accused only on
that day when the crime was committed but from the evidence
it can be seen that the accused was subjected to character
assassination by the deceased for a long time and therefore
from that angle if the defence is examined, it must fail the
test of Exception 1 to section 300 I.P.C. We may state here
in answer that a Division Bench of this court in the
judgment reported in 1972 L.W.Crl.Pg.86, found that though
Exception 1 to section 300 I.P.C speaks only sudden
provocation, yet, found the theory of sustained provocation
also would be comprised within the phrase “sudden
provocation” and gave the benefit of that concept i.e.,
sustained provocation, same to the accused in that case on
the facts noted therein. As stated above by us earlier,
facts will never be similar in two cases. Therefore how far
the theory of sustained provocation can be extended to an
accused facing trial under section 302 I.P.C would vary from
case to case depending upon the facts available. To the
present accused, his thought that his marriage possibility
is getting bleak day-in and day-out at the behest of the
deceased cannot be said to be a wholly unjustified material
to provoke him. If we accept the argument of the learned
Additional Public Prosecutor that if in a given case the
accused put up for trial for the offence under section 302
I.P.C had been at the receiving end for quite a long time
and yet he did not react at all but had reacted only on the
occurrence day and therefore Exception 1 to section 300
I.P.C cannot be extended to him, then we have no doubt at
all that we would be unsettling law laid down by this court
in the judgment referred to supra i.e., 1972 LW (Crl.) Pg.86
followed consistently thereafter till now by this court.
In other words, we do not want to unsettle the law, which
has stood the test of time over a period of 35 long years.
On the facts noted above, we find that the accused had not
only sustained provocation but also was ignited on the
occurrence day just at the nick of time by the deceased once
again repeating his nagging attitude by commenting on the
disability of the accused. This, in our opinion,
definitely attracts Exception 1 to section 300 I.P.C and
therefore his conviction under section 302 I.P.C cannot be
legally sustained. However the accused cannot escape the
clutches of law for murdering the victim as his act can be
brought under section 304 – Part I I.P.C. There is legal
evidence to sustain his conviction under sections 307 and
324 I.P.C namely, for making an attempt on the life of P.W.2
and for causing injuries on P.W.4. Accordingly, the appeal
stands disposed of on the following lines:
“The accused is acquitted of the
offence under section 302 I.P.C and
instead, he is found guilty under section
304 – Part I I.P.C, for which, he would
stand sentenced to undergo seven years
rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount, if
any, imposed on him for his conviction
under section 302 I.P.C is maintained for
his conviction under section 304 – Part-I
I.P.C. The conviction and sentence imposed
on the accused for offences under sections
307 and 324 I.P.C are sustained.”
vsl
To
1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Salem
2.The District Collector, Salem
3.The Director General of Police, Chennai
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai
5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore
6.The State represented by the Inspector of Police,
Kolathur Police Station,
Salem District