Sivaraj @ Siva vs State of Tamil Nadu

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—This is a case of patricide. For the accusation that on 2.6.1998 at 2.00 a.m. Sivaraj alias Siva, the accused beat

his father, the deceased Muthusamy with a cart peg and caused his instantaneous death, the accused was tried for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C and

convicted thereunder. Hence this appeal.

The facts leading to the conviction are as follows:-

(a) P.W.2 Sundarammal is the wife of the deceased Muthusamy. The accused Siva is their son. Indirani is their daughter. All the four were living in

the same house. P.W.1 Chinnamani is residing nearby. P.W.2 and the accused Siva were working as Sweepers in different places. The deceased

Muthusamy was a spendthrift as well as a drunkard. Invariably the deceased would extract money from his wife as well as from his son, drink,

come back home and beat P.W.2 his wife. This was continued for a long time. Due to the harassment of the deceased husband, P.W.2

Sundarammal had chest pain. For that, she took treatment in the hospital.

(b) The fateful occurrence took place on 1/2.6.1998 mid night. Prior to that, on 1.6.1998, the deceased went to the hospital where P.W.2

Sundarammal was working as Sweeper and obtained the salary from her forcefully. Even in the hospital, she was beaten and thereafter she was

continuously beaten till they reached home. As soon as they came back, the deceased asked P.W.2 to serve food to him. Since the food was not

available, P.W.2 asked her daughter Indirani to go out side and get idlies. In the meantime, at about 9 p.m., the deceased again began to beat his

wife, with the result, P.W.2 developed chest pain. Therefore, both P.W.2 and Indirani went to Udumalpettai Venkateswara Nursing Home at

about 11.30 p.m. She was given treatment by the Doctor. After taking injection administered by P.W.9 Nurse, P.W.2 along with Indirani, came to

the house of her father Krishnan.

(c) P.W.8 Kanagaraj is her brother. P.W.2 Sundarammal had no intention of going back home and she wanted to take bed in her father''s house

itself. On hearing this news, the accused, after finishing his duty, went straight to the house of P.W.8 and enquired P.W.2. On knowing that she

was continuously beaten by the deceased, as a result of which, she got chest pain, the accused got angry and told P.W.8, the brother of P.W.2,

that he would see the end on that day itself.

(d) On the midnight of 1.6.1998, the accused came back home. On the way to his house, the accused removed the cart peg (mulaikutchi) from a

bullock cart. When he came to the house, the deceased alone was available. The accused beat his father on the head with the said cart peg. The

deceased sustained injuries on the head, fell down and died on the spot. Then, the accused came out of the house and closed the door.

(e) At that time, P.W.1 Chinnamani, who was the neighbour, came out of her house to attend the calls of nature. On noticing the accused in the

midnight that came out of his house, P.W.1 asked the accused as to why he was there at the odd hours. The accused replied that he had been to

Cinema and came back. Thereafter, P.W.1 went inside her house and slept.

(f) On the early morning of 2.6.1998, Indirani left the house of her grandfather Krishnan and came to her house to take vessel for getting milk to

prepare coffee for her mother. At that time, she found her father dead, lying in a pool of blood. She made a hue and cry. The neighbors gathered

there. P.W.1, thinking that the murder must have been committed only by the son, went to the Police Station and gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.15

Sub-Inspector of Police, Ex.P15 is the F.I.R.

(g) P.W.16 Inspector of Police, on receipt of message took up investigation. He rushed to the scene of occurrence. He prepared Ex.P4

observation mahazar and Ex.P16 rough sketch. He conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased from 11.15 a.m. to 2.00 p.m. and

prepared Ex.P17 inquest report. He examined P.W.1 Chinnamani, P.W.2 Sundarammal and Indirani. Then, the dead body was sent for post

mortem. From the scene of occurrence, P.W.16 recovered MOs4 to 9.

(h) P.W.7 Doctor, on receipt of Ex.P2 requisition, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased at 3.30 p.m. He noticed that the

deceased had sustained crush injuries on various parts of his head. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury on the vital

organ, the brain. Ex.P3 is the post-mortem certificate.

(i) P.W16 continued the investigation. He tried to arrest the accused. On 15.6.1998, he arrested the accused in the presence of P.W.14 Village

Administrative Officer and recorded his confession. In pursuance of his confession, he recovered MO1 blood stained shirt, MO2 blood stained

Lungi and MO3 blood stained stick. Then, he made arrangement for sending the material objects for chemical examination through Court.

Ultimately, he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C.

j. During the course of trial, on the side of prosecution Pws 1 to 16 were examined, Exs.P1 to P17 were filed and MOs1 to 15 were marked.

k. When the accused was questioned u/s 313 Cr.P.C., with reference to the incriminating materials available on record, he stated that a false case

has been foisted against him and even on the date of occurrence, he, P.W.2 his mother and his sister Indirani were taken to the Police station and

detained there and only after two days, his mother and sister were released. But, it is shown that the accused was arrested only on 15.6.1998.

However, no evidence was adduced on the side of defense.

(l) The trial Court on considering the materials available on record, found the accused guilty for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C and sentenced him to

undergo life imprisonment. Assailing the same, this appeal has been filed.

Learned counsel for the appellant would take us through the entire evidence available on record and point out various infirmities in the evidence

and contend that the circumstances projected by the prosecution in this case, would not be sufficient to hold that the accused was the perpetrator

of the crime and the circumstantial evidence would not form a complete chain and consequently, the accused is entitled to be acquitted.

Alternatively, it is submitted that even assuming that the entire case of prosecution is true, since the accused, on having come to know that his

mother was beaten mercilessly after snatching the salary from her by his father with the result, she was admitted in the hospital for chest pain, got

provoked and as a result of sudden and grave provocation, he beat the deceased with the cart peg (mulaikutchi), which was found in the bullock

cart standing near the house of the accused and as such, the act would not fall u/s 302 I.P.C and it may come under Exception 1 to Section 300

I.P.C and consequently, the accused is liable to be convicted u/s 304 (Part I) I.P.C.

In reply to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would contend that the reasons given in

the judgment impugned for convicting the accused are perfectly valid and as such, the findings of the trial Court may not be disturbed.

We have gone through the entire records and also given our anxious consideration to the rival contentions urged on either side.

Admittedly, there was no eye witness. It is settled law that in a case, which is based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance projected by

the prosecution has to be established and those circumstances must form a complete chain without any missing link and the same must point

towards the guilt of the accused without giving any room for hypothesis of the innocence of the accused. In the light of the above principle, we have

to consider the evidence available on record.

The motive for the occurrence, as projected by the prosecution, is that on the date of occurrence, i.e. on 1/6/1998, the deceased went to the

hospital, where P.W.2, his wife was working and beat P.W.2 and snatched the salary from her and took her to the house and till they reached

home, P.W.2 was being continuously beaten by the deceased. According to P.W.2, the wife, the deceased used to torture her for money for

drinking purpose and after drinking, he would also harass her for conjugal relationship with her. Due to heavy beating on 1.6.1998, P.W.2 had a

chest pain and therefore, she was taken to the hospital by her daughter, where treatment was given by P.W.9 Nurse on the instruction of Doctor.

Thereafter, P.W.2, having not inclined to come to the house of the deceased thinking that she would be beaten again by the deceased, went

straight to her father''s house and stayed there. On receiving the news, the accused came and saw P.W.2, who was lying in bed, suffering from

chest pain. This was the motive for the accused to come to the house with M.O.3 cart peg (mulaikutchi) and beat the deceased. Relating to the

motive aspect, we have got the evidence of P.W.2, the wife of the deceased and P.W.8, the brother of P.W.2 and as such, in this case, it has to

be held that the motive aspect has been clearly established.

The next circumstance is the evidence of P.W.1. At about 2.00 a.m., P.W. 1 came out of her house for answering the calls of nature and at that

point of time, she happened to see the accused coming out of his house. When he was asked about his presence at the odd hours, he stated that he

had been to Cinema. Thereafter, P.W.1 went inside her house and slept. Only in the morning, she saw the dead body of the deceased, lying in a

pool of blood. From that day onwards, the accused was absconding. P.W.1 informed the fact that she saw the accused in the early morning at

2.00 a.m. to P.W.8 immediately. Since nobody gave a complaint to the Police Station, she went to the police station and gave the complaint,

which was registered by P.W.15 Sub-Inspector of Police. This evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by P.W.8. So, only on the information

of P.W.1 through Ex.P1, P.W.16 came to the spot and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and during the course of inquest,

he examined P.Ws.1, 2 and one Indirani.

Yet another important circumstance is the extra-judicial confession given by the accused to P.W.3 and P.W.4. Both have stated that after the

occurrence, the accused came and told them that he committed murder of his father and at that time, both of them saw the clothes of the accused

stained with blood. According to the evidence of P.Ws.16 and 14, the accused was arrested only on 15.6.1998. On his confession, MO1 shirt,

MO2 lungi and MO3 cart peg were recovered and all these objects contained blood and the same were sent for chemical analysis. It is noticed

from the Serologist''s report that MO1 contained human blood ""B"" group which tallied with the blood group of the deceased and MO2 Lungi and

MO3 cart peg (mulai kutchi) also contained the human blood.

When all the above said circumstances are put together, there is no difficulty in holding that the accused only committed the act of murdering

his father and then fled away from the scene and he was absconding till 15.6.1998, on which date, he was arrested.

It is stated by the accused in the statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that he was taken by the police on 2.6.1998 and he was detained till 15.6.1998.

But, in respect of this, no suggestion was put to P.W.16. Further, nothing has been elicited from the evidence of P.W.2 by the prosecution that on

2.6.1998, while P.W.2 was taken to the police station, the accused was also taken. Under those circumstances, the circumstances placed before

us by the prosecution would clinchingly prove that the accused alone had committed the act of murdering his father.

The next question that remains to be considered is as to whether the offence committed by the accused would fall u/s 302 IPC. The evidence

adduced by P.W.2 would clearly indicate that on the date on which the salary was obtained by P.W.2, the deceased himself came to the hospital,

where P.W.2 was working and forcibly snatched the salary from her. Not only that, she was beaten in the hospital and from there, she was taken

to home. Till they reached home, she was continuously beaten. She developed chest pain due to beating. Therefore, she was taken to the hospital

by her daughter, where she was given immediate treatment. On hearing this news, the accused, after finishing his work, went to the house of P.W.8

and met his mother. When he heard about the happenings from the mouth of his mother, he got infuriated and told P.W.8 that he would see the end

on that day itself. Thereafter, on the way, he happened to see the bullock cart near the house of the deceased and removed one of the cart pegs

and came to house and beat on the head of the deceased.

It is true that Ex.P3 post-mortem certificate would show that there is a crush injury on the head. There is no dispute that the deceased died on

the spot. But, the fact remains that the accused out of sustained provocation, got infuriated on hearing that his mother was beaten mercilessly and

due to that, she had chest pain and came home to teach a lesson to his father. It is also noticed from the evidence that the accused was also

working in another hospital as Sweeper and he also used to hand over the salary to the deceased. He is an unmarried man aged about 19 years at

the time of occurrence. Under those circumstances, the act of the appellant/accused, in our opinion, would fall under Exception 1 to Section 300

I.P.C and he is not liable to be punished u/s 302 I.P.C. Accordingly, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/ accused u/s 302 I.P.C

by the trial Court are set aside and instead, he is found guilty u/s 304 (Part I), I.P.C and convicted thereunder.

With regard to the question of sentence, it is stated that the accused is still an unmarried man and he is now aged about 24 years. When he was

questioned about the sentence by the trial Court, he represented that he has to take care of the family. Under those circumstances, it would be

appropriate to sentence the accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six years.

With the above modification, the appeal is dismissed.