Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MARIMURUGAN versus STATE REP.BY THE

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Marimurugan v. State rep.by the - Criminal Appeal (MD) No.679 of 2001 [2007] RD-TN 2031 (21 June 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 21/06/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN

Criminal Appeal (MD) No.679 of 2001

Marimurugan .. Appellant Accused

Vs

State rep.by the

Inspector of Police,

Karimedu P.S,

Crime No.2423 Of 99 .. Respondent Complainant Appeal filed under section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the Judgment and conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.111 of 2000 by order dated 06.02.2001.

For Appellant ... No appearance For Respondents ... Mr.L. Murugan, GA (Crl.Side) :JUDGMENT



This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai in S.C.No.111 of 2000 by order dated 06.02.2001.

2. This case is posted today under the caption 'For Dismissal". On earlier occasion also the learned counsel appearing for the appellant remained absent. Even today, also there was no representation on behalf of the appellant. It seems that the learned counsel for the appellant is not interested in the matter. Hence, this Court, on hearing the submission of the Government Advocate (Crl.side) had taken up the appeal for final disposal.

3.The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:

(a)P.W.1-Virumandi is the resident of Pethaniapuram Village. He is a milk vendor. Kaluvathevar, deceased was the brother of P.W.1. P.W.5, Kanagajothi was the daughter of Kaluvathevar. Kaluvathevar was running a straw shop. P.W.1 knew the accused. The accused used to tie bulls in front of the Kaluvathevar's shop. This was objected by deceased Kaluvathevar.

(b) On 07.11.1999 at 2.00 P.M, P.W.1 Virumandi, P.W.4 Madasamy, P.W.2 Alagarsamy, P.W.3 Chidambaram and one Ammasi thevar were standing near the deceased's shop. At that time, the accused came there and scolded the deceased in a filthy language and attacked him and pushed him down. Then, he pressed the Kaluvathevar's head in the electrical cement pole. On seeing this, P.Ws.1 to 4 were came there and the accused ran away. Kaluvathevar was taken to the hospital. P.W.7 Dr.Altaf examined him and found he was dead. On hearing the incident, P.W.5 went to the accused house and asked him. At that time, the accused ran away from the house and hit against the door frame and sustained injury.

(c) Then P.W.1 went to Karimedu Police Station and gave a complaint to P.W.12, the Inspector of Police (Law and Order). The complaint is Ex.P.1. He received the complaint and registered a case in Cr.No.2423 of 1999 under Section 302 I.P.C and prepared Ex.P.6, the printed First Information Report and despatched it to Court and superior officials. At 16.40 hours, he proceeded to the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.2, the Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.7, the Rough Sketch in the presence of P.W.6 Suresh and one Vijayaraman. He also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased from 17.15 hours to 19.15 hours, in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.8-the Inquest Report. He recorded the statements of P.Ws.1 to 4 and 11. A requisition under Ex.P.4 was sent to P.W.9, the doctor, to conduct the postmortem. P.W.9, the doctor, conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased and gave Ex.P.5-the Postmortem Certificate and found following injuries. Peritoneal and Pleural cavities - empty; Pericardium - 15 ml of straw colour fluid; Heart - right side fluid blood, left side empty; Patchy area sclerosis; Coronory vessels - sclerosed. Coronary ostea narrowed; Lungs - cut section - congested; Earynx and Trachea - normal; Hyoid bone - intact; Stomach - 200 ml of red coloured turbid fluid, nil specific smell, mucosa - shows ulceration; Liver, Spleen and Kidneys - cut section - congested; Small intestine - 20 ml of bile stained fluid; Bladder - empty; Brain - surface vessel, cut section - congested.

On opening the thorax and abdomen: Contusion chest right side 4x3 cm below the nipple and right axilla 3cm x 3 cm.

On dissection of Scalp, Skull and Dura: Sub-scalpal contusion left tempero- parietal 15x10 cm with fracture left temporal extending to Right middle cranial fossa upto middle (pitutary fossa). Extradural haemorrhage right tempero- parietal 10x6 xm with 25 grams blood clots.

Diffuse Extradural haemorrhage left cerebrum and right parieto-temporal. Laceration brain 6cm x 3cm x 1 cm with laceration right parietal and temporal 8cm x 6cm x 1 cm with surrounding intracranial haemorrhage. Cerebrospinal fluid increased, blood stained. Brain oedematous.

The doctor gave Ex.P.5, the Post-mortem, which shows that the deceased would appear to have died of cranio-cerebral injuries (Head) sustained by him, 18 to 24 hours prior to Post-mortem.

(d)P.W.12, the Inspector of Police, recovered M.O.1- Dhoti from the dead body of the deceased. He also recorded the statements of the witnesses. On 08.11.1999 at 6.45 p.m., he arrested the accused near the Kamarajar bridge and sent him to the hospital for taking treatment for his head injury. P.W.8, the doctor examined and treated him. Ex.P.3 is the Accident Report. Then P.W.12 remanded the accused to judicial custody. He also recorded the statements of witnesses. On 9.11.1999 he recorded the statements of P.Ws.5 and 10. On 25.11.1999, he recorded the statements of P.Ws.8 and 9, the doctors. He completed the investigation and filed the charge sheet against the accused under Section 302 IPC.

4. Before, the Trial Court, P.Ws.1 to 12 were examined and Exs.P.1 to 8 were marked and M.O.1 was also produced. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C., as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and he denied them as false. No defence witness was examined.

5. On consideration of evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge, found that accused were guilty under Section 304(I) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

6. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.

7. Point for Determination:

1.Whether the accused have committed the offence under Section 304(I) of IPC?

POINT:

P.W.1 Virumandi is the younger brother of deceased Kaluva Thevar. P.W.5, Kanagajothi was the daughter of Kaluva Thevar. Kaluva Thevar was having a straw shop. The accused used to tie his bulls in fornt of the deceaused's shop. This was objected by the deceased Kaluva Thevar. So, there was a misunderstanding between the deceased and accused, even prior to the date of occurrence. (ii) On 07.11.1999 at about 2.00 p.m., P.Ws.1 to 4 and 11 were standing near the shop of the deceased. At that time, the accused came there and scolded the deceased in a filthy language and even shouted that he was not a big person to prevent him tying the bulls in front of his shop. Having said like that, he pushed the Kaluva Thevar and pressed his head in the cement Pole. On seeing this, P.W.1 and other witnesses shouted and came to the scene of occurrence. His brother Kaluva Thevar fell down. This fact was proved by the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, who were present in the scene of occurrence. The evidence of P.W.2 would show that the accused scolded with the victim and he pacified both of them and then he turned hostile. It is clear that there was a quarrel between the accused and victim. P.W.3 was also present there. He heard about the death of deceased. But he turned hostile. P.W.4 also said that he heard about the death of accused and turned hostile. P.W.5 also heard the news and went to the house of the accused and questioned him.

(iii) So in this case, though many witnesses were examined some of them were turned hostile. The evidence of P.W.1 is only supporting the case of prosecution. His evidence would show that the accused scolded the deceased and pushed him in the cement pole. Nothing is elicited from him to reject his evidence. This would show that the accused attacked the victim. (iv) In this case, the accused also sustained injury. It is evident from the witness of P.W.5 that when she went to the house of the accused, he ran away and hit against the door frame. This was supported by P.W.8, the doctor, who treated the accused. When, he examined the accused, the accused informed him that on 07.11.1999, he was coming out from the house, hit against the door frame. P.W.8, doctor gave Ex.P.3, the Acccident Report copy. His evidence would show that the accused sustained injury in the right eye brow. So, the evidence of P.W.5 would show that the accused sustained injury after the occurrence. Hence, the injury of the accused will not demolish the case of prosecution. (v) Further, P.W.12, the Inspector of Police took up the case of investigation and sent the body for Post Mortem. The dead body was subjected to postmortem by P.W.9, the doctor, who gave Ex.P.5-the Postmortem Certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of cranio- cerebral injuries (head) sustained by him, 18 to 24 hours prior to Post-mortem. (vi)It is clear that the death of the deceased is not natural. On the fateful day, the accused scolded with deceased and attacked him, which is resulted to the death of deceased.

(vii) The learned trial Judge considered the evidence elaborately and carefully and come to the conclusion that the accused was found guilty under Section 304(I) I.P.C and explained the reasons in Para 19 of the Judgement. On careful consideration of the evidence on record, I am of the view, that the findings of the trial Court is correct. There is no reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court.

8. In the result, the judgement of the trial Court is confirmed. Though sufficient opportunity was given to the learned counsel for the appellant, there was no representation and hence the Criminal Appeal is dismissed for default. arul

To

1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2.The Inspector of Police,

G.2, Karimedu Police Station.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.