Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 416 (MAD)

Balaraman v. State rep. By Inspector of Police

2016-02-04

M.JAICHANDREN, S.NAGAMUTHU

body2016
JUDGEMENT : S.Nagamuthu, J. The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.248 of 2011 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Poonamallee. He stood charged for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. By judgment dated 27.04.2009, the trial Court convicted the accused for offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this Criminal Appeal. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased in this case was one Mrs.Indira. The accused is her husband. P.Ws.5 & 6 are the daughters of the deceased and the accused. P.W.1 is the neighbour of the deceased. The deceased was earning her livelihood by working in a private concern. The accused did not like the deceased going for a job, as he had doubt about her fidelity. It is alleged that on 09.08.2008, at about 7.00 pm, the deceased had returned to the house after completing her work. P.Ws.5 & 6 were in the house. P.W.1 was in her house. The accused who returned to the house developed quarrel with the deceased since, she refused to give him money for purchasing medicine. In that quarrel, the accused attacked the deceased with hands. When the deceased tried to rush out of the house, the accused took out a knife and stabbed on her chest. The deceased fell down. Immediately, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. Then P.Ws.5 & 6 and others, in an Auto owned by P.W.7, took the deceased to a private hospital. After having examined the deceased, the Doctor told that there was no life. Therefore, they brought the dead body to her house. The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.9 also. 3. P.W.1 went to Thiruverkadu Police Station and made a complaint at 8.45 pm on 09.08.2008. On the said complaint, P.W.10, registered a case in Crime No.349 of 2008 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.16 is the F.I.R. He forwarded both the documents to Court. Thereafter, P.W.10 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and the rough sketch in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness. On the said complaint, P.W.10, registered a case in Crime No.349 of 2008 for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.1 is the complaint and Ex.P.16 is the F.I.R. He forwarded both the documents to Court. Thereafter, P.W.10 proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar and the rough sketch in the presence of P.W.8 and another witness. He recovered the sample earth and the blood stained earth in the place of occurrence. He made arrangements for taking photographs of the place of occurrence. Then he held inquest on the body of the deceased and he forwarded the body for post mortem. 4. P.W.4 Dr.Kuppusamy, conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased. He found the following injuries on the body of the deceased :- “External Injuries 1. There is a stab injury seen on the left side chest 2. The injury is 3 cm above the left side nipple 3. Size of injury 1 ½ cm l x 0.25 cm b x deed into the thorasic cavity. One angl of the injury is acute and other angle is optuse. 4. The injury is on the 3rd intercostal space pierces the inter costal muscle and injured the left atrium of heart. Size of injury in the heart is 1 cm x 1cm x 2 cm 5. Collection of blood in the thorasic cavity is 500 ml. Hyoid bone intact trache normal and empty. Heart a stab injury seen on the left atrium measuring 1 cm x 1 cm x 2cm. Lungs normal and pale. Stomach 200 ml of undigested food particles seen. Liver spleen, kidneys are normal in size c/s pale. Bladder 100 ml of urine present. Uterus empty. Pelvis, spinal. Column, scalp, bones, membranes are intact. Brain normal. ” 5. Ex.P.11 is the Post mortem certificate. P.W.4 gave opinion that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to stab injury to heart. P.W.10 – the then Inspector of Police, on 10.08.2008 at about 8.00 am, arrested the accused in the presence of witnesses. Then he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed about the place where he had hidden the knife. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.10 and witness to his house and produced the knife (M.O.1). Then he forwarded the accused to the Court for judicial remand. On such arrest, he gave a voluntary confession, in which, he disclosed about the place where he had hidden the knife. In pursuance of the same, he took P.W.10 and witness to his house and produced the knife (M.O.1). On returning to the Police Station, he forwarded the accused to Court for judicial remand and handed over the Material Objects to the Court. Then he made a request to the Court to forward the Material Objects for chemical analysis. There were human blood on the blouse, saree and skirt of the deceased as well as in the knife and also on the accused. On completing investigation, finally, he laid charge sheet against the accused for offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 6. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a lone charge against the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 11 witnesses were examined and 23 documents were exhibited, besides 5 material objects. 7. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1, 5, 6, 7 and 9 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence. They have vividly spoken to the effect that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused and at the end of the quarrel, accused stabbed the deceased with knife on her chest. P.W.2, the then Judicial Magistrate No.2, Poonamallee has spoken about the judicial confession recorded by her from the accused. P.W.3 has spoken about the statements recorded by her under Section 164 Cr.P.C., from the witnesses on 08.09.2008. P.W.4 has spoken about the post mortem conducted by him on the body of the deceased. P.W.8 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar. P.Ws.10 & 11 have spoken about the registration of the case and investigation. 8. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied the same as false. However, he did not choose to examine any of the witnesses nor did he marked any documents on his side. 9. Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accused guilty under the said charge and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 10. However, he did not choose to examine any of the witnesses nor did he marked any documents on his side. 9. Having considered all the above, the trial Court found the accused guilty under the said charge and accordingly, sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, the accused/appellant is before this Court with this appeal. 10. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully. 11. P.W.1 in this case is a neighbour. Though, in chief examination, she has stated as though she witnessed the deceased being stabbed by the accused, during cross examination, she stated that she did not see the accused stabbing the deceased. She has stated that after two hours of the occurrence, he came to the house of the deceased and saw the dead body. Thus, though, in chief examination she has stated that she witnessed the entire occurrence, during cross examination, she has given a go-by but, still, this witness had not been treated as hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor who conducted the trial of the case, for the reasons best known to him. Therefore, we cannot give any weightage to the evidence of this witness. 12. But at the same time, we do not find any reason to reject the eye witness accounts of P.Ws.5, 6 & 9. P.Ws.5 & 6 are the daughters of the accused and the deceased. They have vividly spoken about the entire occurrence. Similarly, P.W.9 has also categorically stated that it was this accused who stabbed the deceased with knife on her chest. Their evidences are very clear and cogent and the same are duly corroborated by medical evidence also. Therefore, we cannot find any reason to reject the evidences of the above witnesses. 13. Apart from that, the accused had given a voluntary confession to P.W.2 on 21.08.2008. The learned Judicial Magistrate had followed the procedure contemplated under Section 164 Cr.P.C., to ensure that the confession given by the accused was free and voluntary. In the said confession, the accused has admitted his guilt. 14. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the said statement was not even voluntary, we find it difficult to accept the said submission of the learned counsel. In the said confession, the accused has admitted his guilt. 14. Though, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the said statement was not even voluntary, we find it difficult to accept the said submission of the learned counsel. A close reading of the evidence of the learned Judicial Magistrate (P.W.2) would go to show that she explained the accused on 20.08.2008 when he was produced before her for the purpose of recording confession as contemplated under the Code. She strictly followed the procedure contemplated under Section 164 Cr.P.c., and she gave sufficient time also for the accused to relax. On the next day, i.e., on 21.08.2008, when the accused was produced again for giving confession, P.W.2 recorded his confession after following the procedure contemplated. Thus, we hold that the judicial confession given by the accused to the learned Judicial Magistrate (P.W.2) is voluntary and therefore, the same is admissible in evidence under Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act. 15. It is true that a confession, in general, is a weak piece of evidence but, in this case, the confession of the accused made to P.W.2 is duly corroborated by the eye witness accounts and vise versa. Thus, in our considered view, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt that this accused only caused injury on the body of the deceased by stabbing on her chest with knife which resulted in her death. 16. From all these evidences, we have no doubt that the prosecution has clearly established that it was this accused who attacked the deceased and caused her death. 17. The next question is what is the offence that the accused had committed by his act. From the narration of facts as stated by the P.Ws.5,6 & 9, it is crystal clear that there was some wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased. There was no premeditation on the part of the accused. At the end of the quarrel, the accused is stated to have taken the knife and stabbed the deceased on her chest. The death was also not instantaneous. From these facts, we are of the view that the accused would not have intended to cause the death of the deceased at all. At the end of the quarrel, the accused is stated to have taken the knife and stabbed the deceased on her chest. The death was also not instantaneous. From these facts, we are of the view that the accused would not have intended to cause the death of the deceased at all. At the same time, it is crystal clear that the accused had intended to cause injury found on the deceased, which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature, to cause her death. Thus, the act of the accused would fall within the third limb of Section 300 I.P.C. 18. As we have already pointed out, there was no pre-meditation and the occurrence itself was out of some wordy quarrel. From the evidence available, it is presumed under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, i.e., going by the natural human conduct that in the wordy quarrel, the deceased would have provoked the accused. There was no enmity between the accused and the deceased. After all, they were living under one roof. On the date of occurrence, the accused returned to the house and wanted money from the deceased for the purpose of purchasing medicine. The deceased refused to part away with any amount. This resulted in a quarrel between them. This quarrel went on for some time. In that quarrel, only, the accused had caused a single stab injury on the chest of the deceased. In our considered view, it is only out of the sudden provocation which was also grave, the accused stabbed the deceased with the knife and therefore, the act of the accused would not amount to murder and it would only amount to culpable homicide punishable under Section 304(i) I.P.C. 19. Now, turning to the quantum of punishment, at the time of occurrence, the accused was hardly 46 years old. He has to take care of his family. He had no bad antecedents. After the occurrence also, it is not reported that he was involved in any other crime. Further, there are lot of chances for reformation. So far as the aggravating circumstances are concerned, there was no pre-meditation and there was no strong motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. He had no bad antecedents. After the occurrence also, it is not reported that he was involved in any other crime. Further, there are lot of chances for reformation. So far as the aggravating circumstances are concerned, there was no pre-meditation and there was no strong motive for the accused to commit murder of the deceased. Having regard to these aggravating as well as mitigating circumstances, we hold that the sentencing the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-shall be the appropriate punishment. 20. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed in part and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused under Section 302 I.P.C., is set aside and instead, the appellant is convicted for offence under Section 304(i) I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 8 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant is directed to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.