SEENUVASAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SEENUVASAN, the appellant herein, had been convicted for the offences under Sections 302 and 506 (Part-II) IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2 ,000 /-; and to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment respectively. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, this appeal has been filed by the appellant/accused.

(2.) BRIEF facts could be stated as under: (a) Accused Seenuvasan and the deceased Kasi are cousin brothers. P. W. 1 Ramayee is the wife of the deceased Kasi. (b) On the date of occurrence, i. e. on 22. 3. 2001 at about 3. 00 p. m. , accused Seenuvasan came to the house of the deceased Kasi and requested him to come along with him to the rice mill so that he could assist him in hulling the paddy kept in the rice mill. Accordingly, the deceased accompanied the accused to the rice mill. P. W. 1 Ramayee, the wife of the deceased Kasi also went to the rice mill along with her husband. (c) While hulling the paddy, there was a wordy altercation between the deceased Kasi and the accused Seenuvasan. All of a sudden, the accused took a wooden log which was used as an engine basement found available near him and beat the deceased on his head. When P. W. 1 Ramayee intervened, the accused threw away the wooden log and gave hand-blows on the face and nose of the deceased. The accused then took the iron rod which was available in the rice mill and holding the iron rod, he gave a threat to the deceased. Thereafter, the accused escaped from the scene of occurrence. (d) The deceased-victim, who sustained injuries on the head, was immediately taken to Kallakurichi Government Hospital. He was admitted on 22. 3. 2001 at about 5. 10 p. m. Thereafter, he was referred to Salem Government Hospital. (e) On 23. 3. 2001, on receipt of the intimation, P. W. 10 head Constable came to the Salem Government Hospital and recorded Ex. P-1 complaint from P. W. 1 Ramayee, the wife of the deceased at about 11. 00 a. m. and registered a case for the offences under Sections 294, 323 and 506 (Part-II)IPC. (f) P. W. 11 Inspector of Police went to the scene of occurrence; observed all the formalities and recovered M. O. 1 wooden log and m. O. 2 iron rod. (g) Despite treatment, the deceased Kasi died on 27. 3. 2001. Intimation was sent to the Police Station. P. W. 11 Inspector of police took up further investigation and altered the F. I. R. into one under sections 302 and 506 (Part-II) IPC. He conducted inquest and examined the witnesses. (h) On 28. 3. 2001, P. W. 11 Inspector of Police arrested the accused and sent him for judicial custody. In the meantime, the body was sent for conducting post-mortem. (i) P. W. 8 Doctor conducted the post-mortem and issued ex. P-5 post-mortem certificate giving an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died due to head injuries. (j) After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the accused for the offences referred to above.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant/accused would ultimately confine his argument to the nature of the offence, stating that even assuming that the entire prosecution case is true, the offence alleged against the appellant/accused would come under Section 304 (Part-I) IPC and and hence, the appellant/accused is liable to be punished only for the said lesser offence.