R. Rajamanickam vs State

S. Ashok Kumar, J.—This appeal is filed against the conviction and Sentence of 2 years R.I. and fine ofRs. 5000/- in default 6 months R.I.

for offence u/s 304(A) I.P.C. passed by the Principal Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in S.C. No. 16/99 on 1.4.1999.

The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(a) On 15.10.97 at 8.30 p.m. near the provision shop of PW2-saminathan, the deceased-Murugaian asked the accused whether he was willing to

sell his bicycle. The deceased replied that he is not willing to sell his bicycle. Immediately, the deceased told the accused that when you find no

money to consume arrack, I will purchase your bicycle. The accused got provocated and asked the deceased what kind of words you are using

against me and pushed the deceased on his back. The deceased Murugaian hit against the cement pillar in the provision shop of PW2 and fell

down. The accused went away in his bicycle.

(b) The occurrence was witnessed by PW2 and PW3 who has owned a tea shop opposite to that of provision stores. PW1, PW2 and one

Saravanan took the injured in auto to Nanilam Government Hospital. By about 9.45 p.m. the duty doctor examined the injured and declared that

Murugaian has already died.

(c) In the same night at about 10.00 p.m. PW7-Inspector of Police received Ex.P6-intimation from the hospital and went to the hospital and after

conducting enquiry PW7 recorded the statement of PW1. Based on PW1 statement, Ex.P7-Printed First Information Report was registered in Cr.

No. 728/1997 for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C. Ex. P9 is the mahazar under Form 91 in respect of material objects 1 to 3.

(d) On 16.10.97 between 6.00 a.m. and 7.30 a.m. inquest was conducted over the body. Ex.P8 is the inquest report. During inquest, PW1 &

PW2 were examined and their statement was recorded. PW6-Head Constable send the body of the deceased for autopsy to PW4-Medical

Officer attached to Nannilam Government Hospital. PW4 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at Nannilam Government Hospital on

16.10.97 and find the following injuries on the body of the deceased.

Symmetrical:Moderately nourished Black in colour

External Injuries: 1) Lacerated Injuries on the left eye below the eyebrow on the lateral region 2x1/2 X1cm in size. Bleeds on the Injury.

2) Abrasion on 1/2 cm on the left forehead.

Eyelids: Closed.

Nose:Discharge of Blood.

Mouth:Frothy Discharge from Mouth.

Tongue:Inside the mouth

Jaws:clenched

Teeth:complete in number

Internal organs: Arranged in manner

Heart:150gm congested

Lungs:Left -400gm Right-400 gm congested. Frothy in nature

Hyoid Bone: Intact Stomach:About 50 ml of digested food particles present. Punchat smell present.

Liver:Wt 1400 gm congested Bladder:Empty Kidney:congested 130gm

Brain:congested 1200 gm

Bone:No fracture.

(e) As per Ex. P3-Medical Report no definite opinion is given by PW4 towards the cause of death of the deceased. The possibility of death is due

to Neurogenic shock cannot be ruled out.

(f) On 16.10.97 at 9.00 a.m. PW7 prepared Ex. P4-Observation Mahazar and Ex. P10-rough Sketch in the presence of PW5 and one Balu. On

16.10.97 at 10.15 a.m. the accused was arrested at Kakkakotur bus stand and remanded to judicial custody. (g)Ex.P11 is the requisition from

PW7 to Judicial Magistrate to send the material objects for Chemical analysis. Ex.P12 is the forensic examination results. After completion of

investigation, final report against the accused was filed for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C.

During the trial, on behalf of the prosecution PW1 to PW7 were examined and Exs.P1 to P14 were marked. On behalf of the accused no

witnesses were examined and no documents were marked. When the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C. with regard to the evidence against

the accused, the accused denied the same as false.

On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence produced on behalf of the prosecution, the learned Principal Session Judge,

Nagapattinam came to the conclusion that the accused convicted for the offence u/s 304(A) I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo 2 years R.I. and

to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- in default 6 months R.I. Aggrieved over this, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

Mr. Reguraj learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would contend that even if the prosecution case is taken as true, the offence

attracted could be one u/s 325 I.P.C. and not u/s 304(A) I.P.C.

The learned Counsel for the appellant, highlighting the fact that there was no motive or prior enimity between the accused and the deceased, it

was the deceased who picked up the quarrel and that the accused never had the intention or knowledge that his act of pushing the deceased would

result in the deceased hitting against the cement pillar, thereby resulting in his death.

In the decision reported in 1997 Cri LJ 226 SCC State of Karnataka v. Diwakara Bhat the Honourable Supreme Court has held that fine of

Rs. 5000 imposed by the Sessions Court was sufficient punishment for an offence u/s 325 I.P.C. The facts of the above said case are similar to the

facts of this case also. The accused can be convicted only for the offence u/s 325 I.P.C. and he was already in jail for 64 days.

I am of the opinion, ends of justice will be met if the accused is imposed with a fine of Rs. 2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) which should be

paid within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months.

With the above modification, this criminal appeal is disposed of.