Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANNAMALAI versus STATE REP. BY

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Annamalai v. State rep. By - Criminal Appeal No.678 of 1997 [2007] RD-TN 957 (15 March 2007)

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED : 15/03/2007

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. MURGESEN

Criminal Appeal No.678 of 1997

Annamalai .. Appellant

Vs

State rep. By

The Inspector of Police

Valanadu Police Station

Tiruchirapalli. .. Respondent Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Crl.P.C. to set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in S.C.No.240 of 1995 dated 26.8.1997. For Appellant : Mr.K.Vinayagam for Mr.G.Alagar

For Respondent : Mr.Siva Iyyappan,

Govt. Advocate (Crl.Side) :J U D G M E N T



The appeal is directed against the Judgment of learned learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in S.C.No.240 of 1995 dated 26.8.1997.

2.The brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

i)P.W.1 is the resident of Thottiapatti village in Trichy District; deceased Aruchachalam is his son; he knew Annamalai-accused. Three years prior to the date of occurrence there was a drama held in their village due to 'Adi- 18th' festival; the sister of the accused went to the drama; somebody thrown a stone on her; accused and two others quarreled with victim Arunachalam on the ground that he was responsible for throwing the stone; Panchayat was conducted in the presence one Dharmalingam.

ii)P.W.1, one Kuppusamy, Chinnasamy alias Kalai, and Periasamy Konar were present in the Panchayat. When the Panchayat was going on, the accused attacked the victim on his eyes and when the victim closed his eyes, the accused immediately took a wooden log-M.O.1 nearby and attacked the victim. The victim died on the spot.

iii)P.W.1 immediately gave a complaint to P.W.8 -Sub Inspector of Police attached to Valanadu Police Station. P.W.8 received the complaint and registered the case in Crime No.105 of 1994 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P6 is the printed F.I.R. At 10.45

a.m., he sent the express F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate, Manapparai and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manapparai. He also sent a wireless message to the Circle Inspector incharge and handed over the F.I.R. to the Inspector of Police at 11.15 a.m.

iv)P.W.9-Ambigapathy was the Inspector of Police, Manapparai. He was also in charge of Valanadu Police Station. On 6.8.1994 at 10.45 a.m., he received the wireless message from P.W.8 about the incidence; he proceeded to the scene of occurrence; he conducted inquest on the body of the deceased from 11.30 a.m. to 15.30 p.m., Ex.P9 is the inquest report; he prepared the observation mahazar-Ex.P7 and the sketch-Ex.P8 in the presence of one Palanichamy and Vadamalai-P.W.5; he recorded the statement of P.W.1, Dharmalingam and one Kuppusamy and sent the reports to the Court. Then he also sent the body of the deceased for post-morterm through P.W.7-Police Constable. v)Doctor P.W.6 attached to Manapparai Government Hospital conducted the post-morterm on the dead body of the deceased as per the request on 6.8.1994 at 4.00 p.m. She found

the following injuries.

"1.Lacerated wound with irregular edges 5 cm x 1-1/2 cms and 1 cm present over the middle of the frontal area Bone deep. Clotted blood present at its sides.

2.Black eye left side present contusion 10cm x 4 cm over the left side. Forehead including the left eye and left cheek." Ex.P4 is the Post-Morterm Certificate. The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to the vital organ brain 6 to 8 hours prior to Post Morterm.

vii)P.W.9 in continuation of his investigation recovered M.O.5-blood stained earth, M.O.6-sample earth in the presence of witnesses under Ex.P10. He examined the witnesses P.W.3-Palaniappan, Periasamy, Kandhaiya, Kalai, Palanisamy, P.W.5-Vadamalai and Amirthalakshmi and recorded their statements. He arrested the accused at 10 a.m. on 7.8.1994 near Kovilpatti Bus Stand in the presence of witnesses Vellaiyan and Chinnasamy.

The accused gave a confession Statement. In pursuance of the admissible portion of confession, P.W.9 recovered the blood stained wooden log-M.O.1 under Ex.P12 in the presence of witnesses. Then he sent the accused to the judicial custody. He recorded the statements of Vellaiyan and Chinnasamy, Doctor- P.W6. Then he sent the materials objects for chemical examination with a request to the Judicial Magistrate under Ex.P13. He handed over the investigation to the P.W.10-Inspector of Police on 11.10.1994.

viii)P.W.10 Inspector of Police attached to Thuvarankurichi Police Station took up the investigation on 7.12.1994, examined the witnesses Marudhayee, Ravi alias Ravichandran, Kanagaraj and other witnesses and recorded their statements. He received the Chemical Examination Report-Ex.P15, Serologist's Report-Ex.P16 and after completion of the investigation, filed the charge sheet under Section 302 IPC on 31.12.1994.

3.The prosecution in order to bring home the charges against the accused, examined P.Ws 1 to 10, filed Ex.P1 to P16

and marked M.Os 1 to 6.

4.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in respect of the incriminating materials appearing against him, he denied the charges levelled against him and said that he has been falsely implicated in the case.

5.On consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, found the accused guilty of the offence committed under Section 304(2) IPC and sentenced him to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default one year rigorous imprisonment. The learned Principal Sessions Judge further directed that the fine amount shall be paid to the father of the deceased as compensation under section 357 Cr.P.C. Challenging the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, the appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant.

6.Point for Determination:

1.whether the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt ?

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:

7.P.W.1 is the resident of Thottipatti village, Trichy district. P.Ws 2, 3 and the deceased Arunachalam are the sons of P.W.1. Three years prior to the occurrence, a drama was conducted on account of 'Adi-18th' festival in the village of P.W.1; the accused is known to P.W.1; the sister of the accused Marudhayee also went to that drama; that somebody thrown a stone on Marudhayee; the accused was under the impression that the stone was thrown by the deceased Arunachalam. So there was a clash between Arunachalam , accused and others. Next day a panchayat was convened by one Dharmalingam. P.W.1, one Kuppusamy, Chinnasamy alias Kalai, and Periasamy Konar were present in the Panchayat. When the Panchayat was going on, the accused attacked the victim on his eyes and when the victim closed his eyes, the accused immediately took a wooden log-M.O.1 and attacked the victim on the head. The victim died on the spot.

8.Nothing is elicited from P.Ws 1 to 3 to reject their evidence. Their evidence would show that the accused was not armed with the wooden log at the time of occurrence. The accused had a vengeance against the deceased as he was under the impression that the deceased was responsible for throwing a stone on his sister Marudhayee and Panchayat was conducted and hence in the Panchayat, he is unable to control himself. He attacked the victim with the nearby wooden log and gave a single blow on the victim. The victim died on the spot.

9.When the body was sent for post-morterm, Doctor P.W.6 attached to Manapparai Government Hospital conducted the post-morterm on the dead body of the deceased as per the request on 6.8.1994 at 4.00 p.m. and found the following injuries.

"1.Lacerated wound with irregular edges 5 cm x 1-1/2 cms and 1 cm present over the middle of the frontal area Bone deep. Clotted blood present at its sides.

2.Black eye left side present contusion 10cm x 4 cm over the left side. Forehead including the left eye and left cheek." Ex.P4 is the Post-Morterm Certificate. The Doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to the vital organ brain 6 to 8 hours prior to Post Morterm.

10.So, the death of Arunachalam is not natural. P.Ws 1 to 3 have been examined to speak about the actual occurrence as eye witnesses and P.W.4- Doctor's evidence would show that the victim died due to the injury to the vital organ brain. The accused attacked the victim with wooden log. The learned Principal Sessions Judge has come to the conclusion that the accused can be punishable under Section 304(2) IPC. I find no reason to interfere with the reason adduced by the Principal Sessions Judge.

11.At the time of argument, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant/accused is a newly married person, he has to take care of his six sisters and due to sudden heat and passion he attacked the deceased and the said attack was without any premeditation.

12.So, considering the nature of attack and the weapon used i.e. wooden log-M.O.1, the young age and financial status of the accused, the newly wedded wife and children, I find it is just and proper to reduce the sentence imposed on the appellant/accused to three years rigorous imprisonment instead of five years rigorous imprisonment.

13.Accordingly, the conviction imposed under Section 304(2) IPC by the learned learned Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli in S.C.No.240 of 1995 dated 26.8.1997 is confirmed. However, the imposition of sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment is reduced to three years rigorous imprisonment. With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. To

1.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli.

2.The Inspector of Police,Valanadu Police Station Tiruchirapalli.

3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,


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.