THOMAS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THOMAS, the appellant, was convicted for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. for having caused the death of the deceased Ravi alias Ravindran and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE facts that are relevant for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:- " (a) THE deceased Thomas and the deceased Rav i alias Ravindran were working as employees under p. W. 1 - Anthony Joseph, who is running a coir factory. THE deceased Ravi and the accused Thomas were working as Driver and Mechanic respectively under p. W. 1. While purchasing coconut fibre to the factory, the accused and the deceased used to receive commission and divide their respective shares between themselves. THEre was a dispute regarding sharing of the commission amount. (b) On 02. 4. 1998, P. W. 1 entrusted some machines for carrying out repairs to the accused Thomas and he took the same to workshop of p. W. 7 Subramaniam. After the machines were repaired, P. W. 7 requested to bring a vehicle to take the welding machines also. Accordingly, the deceased driver and the accused brought the vehicle to the workshop of P. W. 7 in which they carried the welding machines during which time, there was a quarrel between them. THE deceased, Ravi after reaching the house of P. W. 1 at 7. 45 p. m. , went inside the house to make complaint about the accused. At that time, the accused followed him inside the house and stabbed him on the chest of the deceased. This was immediately informed to P. W. 1, who was in the club at that time. THEreupon, he came to the scene and took the injured to C. M. C. Hospital at 9. 30 p. m. , where it was informed that the injured had died. (c) P. W. 1 went to the Police Station on 03. 4. 1998 at 4. 00 a. m. and gave complaint Ex. P. 1 to P. W. 9 Ramaraj, Head Constable attached to thondamuthur Police Station and the case was registered in Crime No. 27 of 1998 for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. He prepared Ex. P. 8 - First Information report and sent the same to the Court and higher officials. (d) P. W. 10 Kasiviswanathan, Inspector of Police, thondamuthur Police Station, took up investigation. He went to the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar Ex. P. 4 and rough sketch Ex. P. 9. He seized M. O. 2 bloodstained piece of cement plaster earth and M. O. 3 sample piece of cement plaster earth under mahazar Ex. P. 5. On 03. 4. 1998, he went to the hospital at about 8. 40 a. m. and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased before panchayatdars till 12. 00 p. m. and the Inquest Report is ex. P. 10. He sent requisition letter Ex. P. 2 on 03. 4. 1998 to P. W. 2 - Dr. Edwin Joe to conduct autopsy on the body of the deceased. (e) P. W. 2 Dr. Edwin Joe, on receipt of the requisition, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased at about 12. 15 p. m. and issued Ex. P. 3 Post-Mortem Certificate wherein he opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury No. 1 and corresponding internal injuries sustained by him. (f) In the meantime, P. W. 10, On 03. 4. 1998, arrested the accused at about 4. 00 p. m. and recorded his confession statement, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex. P. 6 based on which, he recovered M. O. 1 bloodstained knife under mahazar Ex. P. 7 before the witnesses. He also recovered M. O. 4 bloodstained shirt and M. O. 5 bloodstained lungi from the accused under Ex. P. 11. (g) P. W. 11, Sakthivel, Inspector of Police, who succeeded p. W. 10, took up further investigation. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet on 18. 9. 1998 against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C. (h) During the course of trial, on the side of the prosecution, P. Ws. 1 to 11 were examined; Exs. P-1 to P-16 were filed and M. Os. 1 to 10 were marked. (i) When the accused was questioned under Section 313 of cr. P. C. , he denied his complicity in the crime in question. (j) THE trial Court, relying upon the evidence adduced by the prosecution and having accepted the case of the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid. Aggrieved over the said conviction and sentence, the accused has filed this appeal".

(3.) EXCEPTION 4 to Section 300 I. P. C. reads as under: "culpabale homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. "