Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1567 (MAD)

Thomas v. State by Inspector of Police

2006-06-29

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN, M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM

body2006
Judgment :- (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Criminal Procedure Code filed against the judgment dated 28.02.2002 in S.C.No.344 of 2001 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.) M. Karpagavinayagam, J. Thomas, the appellant, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. for having caused the death of the deceased Ravi alias Ravindran and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed. 2. The facts that are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- "(a) The deceased Thomas and the deceased Ravi alias Ravindran were working as employees under P.W.1 - Anthony Joseph, who is running a coir factory. The deceased Ravi and the accused Thomas were working as Driver and Mechanic respectively under P.W.1. While purchasing coconut fibre to the factory, the accused and the deceased used to receive commission and divide their respective shares between themselves. There was a dispute regarding sharing of the commission amount. (b) On 02.4.1998, P.W.1 entrusted some machines for carrying out repairs to the accused Thomas and he took the same to workshop of P.W.7 Subramaniam. After the machines were repaired, P.W.7 requested to bring a vehicle to take the welding machines also. Accordingly, the deceased driver and the accused brought the vehicle to the workshop of P.W.7 in which they carried the welding machines during which time, there was a quarrel between them. The deceased, Ravi after reaching the house of P.W.1 at 7.45 p.m., went inside the house to make complaint about the accused. At that time, the accused followed him inside the house and stabbed him on the chest of the deceased. This was immediately informed to P.W.1, who was in the club at that time. Thereupon, he came to the scene and took the injured to C.M.C. Hospital at 9.30 p.m., where it was informed that the injured had died. (c) P.W.1 went to the Police Station on 03.4.1998 at 4.00 a.m. and gave complaint Ex.P.1 to P.W.9 – Ramaraj, Head Constable attached to Thondamuthur Police Station and the case was registered in Crime No.27 of 1998 for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. He prepared Ex.P.8 - First Information Report and sent the same to the Court and higher officials. (d) P.W.10 – Kasiviswanathan, Inspector of Police, Thondamuthur Police Station, took up investigation. (d) P.W.10 – Kasiviswanathan, Inspector of Police, Thondamuthur Police Station, took up investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.4 and rough sketch Ex.P.9. He seized M.O.2 – bloodstained piece of cement plaster earth and M.O.3 – sample piece of cement plaster earth under mahazar Ex.P.5. On 03.4.1998, he went to the hospital at about 8.40 a.m. and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased before panchayatdars till 12.00 p.m. and the Inquest Report is Ex.P.10. He sent requisition letter Ex.P.2 on 03.4.1998 to P.W.2 - Dr.Edwin Joe to conduct autopsy on the body of the deceased. (e) P.W.2 – Dr.Edwin Joe, on receipt of the requisition, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased at about 12.15 p.m. and issued Ex.P.3 Post-Mortem Certificate wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury No.1 and corresponding internal injuries sustained by him. (f) In the meantime, P.W.10, On 03.4.1998, arrested the accused at about 4.00 p.m. and recorded his confession statement, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P.6 based on which, he recovered M.O.1 – bloodstained knife under mahazar Ex.P.7 before the witnesses. He also recovered M.O.4 – bloodstained shirt and M.O.5 – bloodstained lungi from the accused under Ex.P.11. (g) P.W.11, Sakthivel, Inspector of Police, who succeeded P.W.10, took up further investigation. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet on 18.9.1998 against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. (h) During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 11 were examined; Exs.P-1 to P-16 were filed and M.Os.1 to 10 were marked. (i) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in the crime in question. (j) The trial Court, relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and having accepted the case of the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this appeal". 3. We have heard Mr.Johnson, learned Counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr.C.T.Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have also gone through the entire records. 4. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this appeal". 3. We have heard Mr.Johnson, learned Counsel for the appellant, as well as Mr.C.T.Selvam, Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. We have also gone through the entire records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant took us through the entire evidence and pointed out various discrepancies in the evidence available on record adduced by the eye-witnesses. Ultimately, he submitted that even assuming that the case of the prosecution is true, since the accused had inflicted a single stab, he could be convicted only for the lesser offence and not under Section 302 I.P.C. On this aspect, we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 5. On going through the materials, it is clear that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt as in our view, the evidence of eye-witness P.W.4 – Kunjumole, who is working at the house of P.W.1, is cogent and consistent, which is corroborated by the medical evidence adduced by P.W.2 Doctor. As a matter of fact, P.W.3 – Mohamed and P.W.4 are the co-employees and their names also have been mentioned in Ex.P.1 complaint given by P.W.1, the employer of the deceased. 6. With regard to the nature of offence, it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. is not made out. On the other hand, it is submitted that the appellant is entitled to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. This submission, in our view, does not merit acceptance. 7. Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. reads as under: "Culpabale homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner." 8. It is clear that to invoke Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C., four requirements are to be satisfied as laid down by this Court as well as the Supreme Court, and they are as follows: (1) Sudden fight (2) No premeditation (3) Act was done in a heat of passion (4) The assailant had not taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. 9. 9. But in this case, it is pointed out that there was a sudden quarrel between both the accused and the deceased and the quarrel continued for a considerable time. Merely because there was a sudden quarrel, it cannot be said that the accused would be entitled to seek for Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. on that score. As indicated above, the four requirements have to be established. It may be stated that in this case, there was a sudden fight or sudden quarrel in the heat of passion. But certainly, it cannot be said that there was no premeditation. According to P.W.3 – Mohamed, after quarrel, the deceased Ravi entered into the house of P.W.1 to make complaint to him about the conduct of the accused. At that time, the accused went into his room and had a change of dress and after wearing lungi, he came with knife. When the deceased Ravi was in upstairs, the accused Thomas went inside the house of P.W.1 and approached the deceased, who was coming down through the stairs and then stabbed on his chest. 10. In the Post-Mortem Certificate Ex.P.3, the Doctor has given opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury No.1 and corresponding internal injuries. Injury No.1 and the corresponding injuries as found in Ex.P.3 are as under: "Vertically oblique stab wound 3 x 1 cm on the front of upper part of left side chest. The upper end is 2 cms below to the inner end of left clavicle. The wound passes through the first and second intercostal space and entered into the left pleural cavity. Then it has entered into the left pleural cavity. Then it has entered the anterolateral aspect of mediastinum in the left side 2 x 0.5 cm and cut the arch of aorta in the left lateral aspect and stabbed the left atrium 2 x 0.5 cm. The length of the wound tract is about 11.5 cms. The margin of the wound was clear cut. The upper end is obtused and lower end pointed Pericardial cavity contains about 150 gms of clotted blood. - Left pleural cavity contains about 1000 ml of blood with clots. - Left lung found collapsed." 11. The measurement of the knife, which had been used for committing the offence as found in the mahazar is 24.3 Cms length. The upper end is obtused and lower end pointed Pericardial cavity contains about 150 gms of clotted blood. - Left pleural cavity contains about 1000 ml of blood with clots. - Left lung found collapsed." 11. The measurement of the knife, which had been used for committing the offence as found in the mahazar is 24.3 Cms length. These materials available on record would clearly indicate that the accused went to his room and after changing of dress, brought the lengthy knife and came in search of the deceased Ravi inside the house of P.W.1 and gave a heavy blow on the chest, which is found to be fatal as per the evidence of the Doctor P.W.2, with the intention to murder him. In these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant / accused that the offence would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C. In our view, it is a clear case of murder and the conviction imposed on the accused is perfectly justified. 12. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed confirming the conviction and sentence imposed under Section 302 of I.P.C. on the appellant / accused. The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the custody of the accused to undergo the remaining period of sentence.