Fact of the Case
2.Raju [deceased] and the appellant were from Pallipalayam Village and were known to each other. The appellant was having a pet dog, which littered puppies. The appellant found Raju coming to his house and feeding the puppies. The appellant objected to it. On account of which, there was a quarrel between the appellant and Raju. On 11.03.2018, around 02.00 in the afternoon, when the appellant was not at home, Raju went to the house of the appellant and took a puppy from there and brought it to his house. On coming to know of this, the appellant quarrelled with Raju and is said to have attacked Raju with an iron pipe [MO-1], on account of which, Raju sustained injuries. Raju was taken to the Government hospital, Pallipalayam, where he was admitted.
3. Abinaya, Doctor [PW-6], performed autopsy on the body of Raju and issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P11], wherein, she has noted the injuries. The viscera report [Ex.P12] showed that Raju was under the influence of alcohol. Abinaya, Doctor [PW-6], gave her final opinion stating that the death was on account of head injury and skull fracture leading to hemorrhage and shock vide postmortem report 4. After examining the witnesses and collecting the various reports of the experts,
Charges
In the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode, for the offence u/s.302 IPC against the appellant. On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.21/2019 and was made over to the Principal Sessions Court, Namakkal, for trial. The trial Court framed a charge u/s.302 IPC against the accused and when questioned, the accused pleaded ‘not guilty’. When the appellant was questioned u/s.313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. No witness was examined from the side of the appellant nor any document marked. After considering the evidence on record and hearing either side, the trial Court, by judgment and order dated 08.11.2019 in S.C.No.21 of 2019, convicted the appellant for the offence u/s.302 IPC and sentenced him as follows : Provision under which convicted Sentence Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo four years simple imprisonment.
Evidence analysis
7. We carefully perused the testimony of other witnesses. Apart from the evidence of Venkatesan [PW-2], there is no other eye witness in this case. From the evidence on record, we are able to discern that the appellant was objecting to Raju feeding his puppies and on the fateful day, Raju is said to have taken one of the puppies from the house of the appellant while the latter was away. On coming to know of it, the appellant had gone to the house of Raju and in the quarrel, the appellant is said to have attacked Raju with an iron pipe. It is also seen that this is not a premeditated murder or the appellant had the intention to commit the murder of Raju. The appellant was 50 years old and Raju was 60 years old at the time of the occurrence.
9.On a careful consideration of the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the conviction and sentence u/s.302 IPC cannot be sustained, instead, the appellant is convicted of the offence u/s.304(II) IPC and 7/9 sentenced to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment. The fine imposed by the trial Court is confirmed, but, the default sentence is reduced to one month simple imprisonment. With the above modification, this Criminal Appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Party: Ananthan S/o.Palaniyappan .. Appellant Vs. The State represented by The Inspector of Police, Pallipalayam Police Station, Namakkal District. Crime No.151 of 2018 .. Respondent – Criminal Appeal No.1149 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.16334 of 2022,Dated: December 1,2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/index.php/casestatus/viewpdf/1006531
Ananthan vs Pallipalayam Police Station
Further study
Murder case whether s.302 ipc or s.304 ipc? – explained
section 299 IPC – Culpable homicide explained
