Adaikalaraj vs State

S. Thangaraj, J.—The accused in S.C. No. 184/90 on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, has filed this appeal.

The Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram, has filed a charge sheet against the accused alleging that on 13.9.1989 at 3.00 P.M. at Nayaloor

Kuttapattu, the accused with intention to commit the murder of his father-in-law Arokiyaswamy, beat him with a stick and Arokiyasamy

succumbed to the injuries and thereby the accused was liable to be punished for an offence u/s 302 I.P.C.

Learned Judicial Magistrate I, Tiruchirapalli committed the case to the file of Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, u/s 209(a) Cr.P.C. Learned II

Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, after hearing the arguments and also perusing the records framed charges u/s 302 I.P.C. against the

accused, read over and explained to him in Tamil and the accused pleaded not guilty to the charge.

The main averments found in the evidence of witnesses are as follows:

a) The appellant Adaikalaraj and the deceased Arokiasamy were close relatives as the daughter of the deceased P.W.2 Sagayarani was

married to the accused. The couple did not live a happy life and P.W.2 Sagayarani lived separately with her parents. On 13.9.1989 at about 3.00

P.M. P.W.2 Sagayarani went to the garden of the accused and had a wash by taking water from the tub. The appellant questioned as to how she

could enter inside the garden. There was a wordy altercation between P.W.2 and the appellant and P.W.2 went to her parents crying and reported

the matter to them. Arokiasamy, father of P.W.2 went to the garden to question the appellant and P.W.1. Anthony Ammal his wife P.W.2

Sagayarani his daughter also followed him. When Arokiasamy questioned the appellant, replied that when he was unable to give a cot and bureau

as dowry how he could question him and by saying so he beat Arokiasamy with the help of the stick (M.O.1) on his left plank. Arokiasamy, P.Ws.

1 and 2 ran away towards their house. The appellant chased them and near the house of Arokiasamy, he beat on the head of Arokiasamy. When

Arokiasamy tried to ward off the beating, it fell on right shoulder and left shoulder and Arokiasamy fell on the ground. Immediately he was taken to

the hospital by P.Ws.1, 2 and others.

b) P.W.9 Dr. Dhanraj was the Civil Assistant Surgeon in the Government Hospital, Tiruchirapalli. On 13.9.89 at about 7.35 p.m. Arokiasamy was

taken to the hospital by his wife fur treatment for certain injuries said to have been caused at 3.00 P.M. on that day by a known person with a

stick. P.W.9 found me following injury.

Lacerated wound about 1-5 cm. � 0.5 cm. On the Left occipital parietal region"". The injury was simple in nature. The copy of the accident

register in Ex.P.7. Arokiasamy died at 9.30 P.M. on 13.9.1989. P.W.9 sent a death intimation Ex.P.8 to the concerned Police Station.

c) P.W.11 Premkumar while he was Sub-Inspector of Police, Somarasampettal, received the death intimation at about 9.10 P.M. on 13.9.1989

and reached the hospital at 10.00 P.M. and recorded the statement of P.W.1 Anthony Ammal, read over and duly signed by her, which is marked

as Ex.P.1, P.W.11 returned to Somarasampettai Police Station at 11.30 P.M. and registered a case in Crime No. 604/89 u/s 302 I.P.C. and the

printed FIR. is Ex.P.9 P.W.11 sent the express FIR to the Court and the copies to the concerned authorities. P.W.12 Narayanasamy was the

Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram Police Station, and on 14.9.1989 in the early hours he received the copy of the F.I.R. and reached the place of

occurrence at 3.00 A.M.

d) P.W.12 searched for the appellant and found him absconding. At 6.00 A.M. P.W.12 prepared observation mahazar Ex.P.2 in the presence of

P.W.6 Natarajan, Village Administrative Officer, and One Iruthayasamy, P.W.7, P.W.12 prepared the rough sketch, Ex. P. 10. He seized the

blood stained earth and sample earth under a cover of mahazar Ex. P. 3 duly signed by P.W.6 and Iruthayasamy P.W.7. The Inspector of Police

went to the hospital and at about 8.00 A.M. conducted inquest on the body of Arokiasamy and prepared inquest report Ex.P.11 At 12.00 noon,

he sent the body for postmortem with the requisition Ex.P.4.

e) P.W.10 Shanmugam, Constable attached to Somarasampettai Police Station, produced Ex.P.4 requisition and the body of Arokiasamy to

P.W.8 Dr. Manivannan the Civil Assistant Surgeon attached co Government Hospital, Thiruchirapalli. On 14.9.1989 at about 1.20 P.M. he

conducted post-mortem on the body of Arokiasamy and he found the following injuries:

External Injuries:

A sutured wound linear 8 cm. in length in the left parietal region of scalp 4 cm. from the midline extending from front to back 5 sutures seen.

Lacerated wound in the left lateral arm 3 cm x

2 cm xl/2 on arm is edematous.

Abrasion over the right chest 3 cm � 2 cm.

Two lacerated wounds each 2 cm � 1 cm in the left fore arm 2 cm apart and muscle leep.

Contusion and Bluish discolouration around the left eye ball.

Contusion over the left occipito parietal Junction 8 cm � 6 cm.

Discharge of Blood through left ear and Nostrils and Nose.

Internal injuries:

On removing the sutures there is contusion below the scalp in the left parieto - occipital region.

Fracture of vault of the skull in the left front-parietal region 4 cm from the mid line extending from the middle of left orbit running along the frontal

and parietal region to a length of 10 cm. Fracture is fissured above the orbit and narrows towards the back.

A linear hairline fractures in the left temporal bone extending from front to back 3 cm above the ear 4 cm length.

Fracture in the right posterior cranial Fossa running transversely 3 cm in length.

Brain is congested subdural Blood clots 30C gms. Wt. seen over the entire brain surface, Brain wt. 1900 gms. On opening the Thorax, Lungs

Pale rt. Lung 450 gms. Left lung 425 gms. Heart pale chambers empty. No rib fractured, opening abdomen, all organs are pale. Liver 1500 gms.

Spleen pale 150 gms. Both kidneys pale wt. 150 gms. Each intestines pale. Stomach is empty. Bladder Empty and pale No long bone injury Hyoid

bone intact Spinal Cord normal.

P.W.8 was of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to vital organ-Brain 14-18 Hrs.

prior to post-mortem. The postmortem certificate is Ex.P.5.

f) P.W.10 seized the blood stained Lungi of Arokiasamy and produced it before the Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram. P.W.12 continued the

investigation and arrested the accused at 2.00 P.M. on the same day in front of the Church at Navalur Kuttapattu Village, P.W.12 examined the

appellant in the presence of witnesses. The appellant gave a confession statement in the presence of P.Ws.6 and 7. The admissible portion of it is

Ex.P.12. The accused took the Inspector of Police, Jeeyapuram and others and produced M.O.1 Stick which was seized by the Inspector of

Police under a cover of mahazar Ex.P.13 duly signed by P.Ws.6 and 7. On 14.9.1989, he examined P.Ws. 1 to 5 and others and recorded their

statements. On 15.9.1989, he examined P.W.10 and recorded his statement. On 22.9.1989 he examined P.Ws.8 and 9 and recorded their

statements. P.W.12 sent a requisition, Ex.P.14, to the Court for sending the articles seized for chemical examination. Thereafter P.W. 12 was

transferred from the said police station.

g) P.W. 13 who succeeded as Inspector of Police in Jeeyapuram Police Station continued the investigation and on getting the chemical analyst

report. Ex.P.16 and Serologist report, Ex.P.17, laid chargesheet against the appellant u/s 302 I.P.C.

h) When the appellant was questioned u/s 313(1)(b) Cr.P.C, he denied the incriminating circumstances put to him from the evidence of witnesses.

In his statement, the appellant has stated that he is aged about 23 years and Arokiasamy without his consent conducted his registered marriage

with P.W.2 Sagayarani. Sagayarani was having illicit intimacy with her elder sister''s husband by name Kulanthaisamy and was quarrelling with him

(appellant) demanding right over his property. On the date of occurrence when Sagayarani went to the garden he questioned her as to how she

had come, for which she abused him and he had beat her. After sometime Sagayarani brought her father, who came there with a stick in his hand

and beat on his head with the stick and he sustained bleeding injuries. He seized the stick from the hands of Arokiasamy and tried to beat hand on

his and by chance; fell on his head. He went to the hospital and got treatment for his injury. He did not give any confession statement and not

produced the stick as alleged. The appellant did not examine any witness on his side. Learned II Additional Sessions Judge. Thiruchirapalli found

the accused guilty u/s 304 (Part II) IPC, convicted and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Aggrieved by, the said

conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

The point for consideration in this appeal is, whether the appellant is liable for an offence u/s 304 (Part II) I.P.C?

The appellant Adaikalaraj is a native of Nayalur Kuttapattu village near Tiruchirapalli and he married P.W.2 Sagayarani, the daughter of

Arokiasamy. P.W.1 Anthony Ammal is the wife of Arokiasamy. The appellant and his wife P.W.2 Sagayarani were not living happily. It is clear

from the statement of the appellant that he suspected the fidelity of his wife. The couple were not happy, with the result Sagayarani, was living with

her parents in the same village. On 13.9.1989 at about 3.00 P.M. when the appellant was in his garden and had a wash by taking water from the

tub. The appellant questioned her as to how she had come to his garden. P.W.2 Sagayarani objected to such question and thereafter there were

wordy altercation between the couple. The appellant in his statement had stated that he beat Sagayarani who cried and brought her father. It is the

case of prosecution that when Arokiasamy and his wife P.W.1. Anthony Ammal went to the appellant and Arokiasamy questioned him, he beat on

his left plank with M.O.1 Stick. The appellant seized the stick from the hands of Arokiasamy and beat him. Arokiasamy, P.Ws.1 and 2 ran

towards their house and the appellant near their house again beat Arokiasamy on his head, right shoulder and left shoulder and Arokiasamy fell

down. The appellant gave a different explanation saying that P.W.2 Sagayarani brought her father who came with M.O.1 in his hand and beat on

his head and with a view to prevent any further beating the appellant seized the stick from the hands of Arokiasamy and tried to beat on his hand

and by chance the beating fell on the head of Arokiasamy. Learned Sessions Judge while analysing the evidence had come to the conclusion that

such a defence raised by the appellant could not be believed for the simple reason that Arokiasamy had number of injuries on his person, as

confirmed by the post-mortem Certificate, Ex. P. 5 and therefore the explanation offered by the appellant cannot be accepted. Learned Sessions

Judge has also given sufficient reasons to come to the conclusion that the offence committed by the accused would fall u/s 304 (Part II) I.P.C. As

the Learned Sessions Judge has given cogent and convincing reasons, and the appellant was unable to raise any valid reasons to differ with the

findings of the Learned Sessions Judge, I have no hesitation to accept the findings of the Learned Sessions Judge. The appellant has not argued on

merits and instead he pleaded for reduction of sentence by pleading mercy.

While considering the plea of mercy of the appellant for reduction of sentence, it is clear from the evidence that the marriage between the

appellant and Sagayarani was conducted forcibly by registration. The appellant who was aged about 23 years had a suspicion that Sagayarani was

having illicit intimacy with her elder sister''s husband Kulanmaisamy. So the appellant did not have a peaceful life with his wife Sagayarani and the

couple lived separately. On the date of occurrence when the appellant questioned Sagayarani as to how she entered into the garden she brought

her father and thereafter the occurrence had taken place. The appellant had no intention to commit the murder of the deceased Arokiasamy and it

was only due to the circumstance the appellant had to inflict dose injuries on the person of Arokiasamy who succumbed to the said injuries. By

considering all these circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge, convicted the appellant u/s 304 (Part II) I.P.C. The appellant repents for his act

and due to reasons stated by him he had no happy family life. Since, 14.9.1989 the date on which he was arrested and till date he is facing the trial

and appeal of this case. In a similar circumstances, this Court held in {Palani Gounder v. State) 1996 L.W. (Crl.) 218 at page 220.

...Here is a case where the appellant during the course of quarrel, merely fisted with the hand on the place near the left eye-brow of the deceased

and it was out of sudden quarrel and he would not have expected that this fisting would lead to the death of the victim. It is also submitted that the

age of appellant was 53 years at the time of the incident and that he has got family and children and he is the bread winner of the family and his

present age is about 62 years. So, the ends of justice will be met by reducing the sentence to a period of 2-1/2 years.

As the appellant is aged about 23 years at the time of occurrence and as he was not having a happy family life and the occurrence had happened

due to unforeseen circumstances, the sentence of the appellant is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for three years.

In the result, the conviction is confirmed and the sentence is modified into rigorous imprisonment for three years, except this modification the

appeal shall stand dismissed on all other respects.