MUTHUSAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Namakkal convicting the accused under Section 302 IPC to undergo life imprisonment made in S. C. No. 54 of 2003, dated 31. 3. 2003.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 01. 06. 2003 at about 3. 00 p. m. , when P. Ws. 1 to 3 and the deceased Chinnasamy were sitting in front of P. W. 3's house and were chatting after attending the betrothal function of P. W. 3's son, the accused came and questioned P. W. 3 as to why he did not invite him to the said function. When the deceased interfered, the accused told him that due to the deceased's intervention very often, there happens to be a fight between his relatives and him and that he told the deceased not to interfere in his family affairs and there arose a wordy altercation between them. Immediately, he went to his house and came back with a "Koduvaal" and cut the deceased on the left side of his neck. After receiving the cut injury on his neck, the deceased started running. THE accused chased him and cut the deceased on the left bottom of the shoulder, left armpit and at the back side of the right shoulder. After attacking the deceased, the accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. This occurrence was witnessed by P. Ws. 1 to 3. [b]THE injured was taken to Namakkal Government Hospital by the witnesses, where he was given the first aid. P. W. 5, the doctor attached to the said hospital gave the treatment to the injured and gave Ex. P. 3-Accident Register. THEreafter, he was taken to Salem Government Hospital for further treatment at about 9. 30 p. m. , wherein he was given treatment by P. W. 11-Dr. Manimegalai, who gave Ex. P. 12-Accident Register. But, despite treatment, the injured died in the hospital. [c]P. W. 10, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Vaazhavanthi Police Station, at the relevant point of time, on 01. 06. 2002 at about 8. 30 p. m. received a wireless message about the incident. But, due to the non-availability of transport facility he was not able to go to the scene of occurrence. On 02. 06. 2002, at about 2. 20 a. m. , he again received a wireless message from Salem Mohan Kumaramangalam Government Medical College Hospital Out Post Police Station that the injured Chinnasamy had died. At about 7. 00 a. m. , on 02. 06. 2002, on reaching the Out Post Police Station, he received the Death Intimation, Ex. P. 2 and went to the Mortuary, wherein P. W. 1 had given the complaint Ex. P. 1. THE Investigating Officer sent information to the Puduchathiram Inspector who was in-charge of the Senthamangalam Police Station. Based on the complaint given by P. W. 1, he prepared the First Information Report, Ex. 13 in Crime No. 129. 2002 under section 302 IPC and sent the Printed FIR and Ex. P. 1 to the court concerned through P. w. 8. THE copies of the FIR were also forwarded to the higher officials. [d]P. W. 13, who was the Inspector of Puduchathiram Police Station, at the relevant point of time, took up the further investigation upon receiving the FIR copy on 02. 06. 2002 at 11. 00 a. m. He went to the hospital and conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased between 12. 00 p. m. and 30 p. m. in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdars through Ex. P. 16-the Inquest Report. He also enquired the witnesses and recorded their statements. [e]After inquest, the dead body was sent for Postmortem along with a requisition, Ex. P. 12. P. W. 12, Dr. R. Vallinayagam, attached to the Government Mohan Kumaramangalam Hospital, Salem, upon receiving requisition on 02. 06. 2002 at about 4. 15 p. m. , conducted autopsy on the dead body at 4. 30 p. m. He found the following injuries:-

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that the accused is a distant relative to the deceased and the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as put forth by P. Ws. 1 to 3 who are stated to be the eye witnesses and the dispute is only on a wordy quarrel between the accused and his brothers and the deceased had interfered and in that course only he has been attacked and there is no intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the deceased person. THErefore, the conviction and sentence passed against the accused by the learned Sessions Judge, Namakkal is not sustainable, and at best, the conviction could be made against the accused only under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. He would also draw the attention of the Court that the injuries caused to the deceased person are on a spur of the moment and there is no pre-meditated murder of the deceased.