MURUGAIYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of Sessions Division, Perambalur made in S.C.No.127 of 2003, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged under Section 302 IPC, tried, found guilty as per the charge and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/-, in default to undergo 2 months R.I.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:a) P.W.1 is the wife of deceased Muniamuthu. P.Ws.2,3 and 4 are all neighbours. THE houses of the accused and the deceased are situated adjacent to each other. Regarding the site in between their houses, they had a long quarrel. On the date of occurrence, that was on 23.10.1998 at about 10.15 p.m., as usual, the accused and the deceased had quarrel, in which the accused assaulted the deceased with the stick on his head, shoulder and leg. When P.W.1 questioned the accused, she was also intimidated. THE occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.2 to 4. THE deceased fell down and died. THE accused fled away from the place of occurrence. b) P.W.1 proceeded to the respondent police station, where P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police was on duty at that time. P.W.1 gave Ex.P.1, the complaint, on the strength of which, a case came to be registered in Crime No.661 of 1998 under Section 302 IPC. Ex.P.10, the F.I.R. was despatched to the Court. c) On receipt of the copy of the F.I.R., P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, proceeded to the spot and made an inspection in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared Ex.P.2, the observation mahazar and Ex.P.11, the rough sketch. He has also conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared Ex.P.12, the inquest report. He recovered the bloodstained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. He also recovered M.O.1, stick under a cover of mahazar. THE dead body was sent to the Government Hospital, Ariyalur for the purpose of autopsy.d) P.W.7, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Ariyalur, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased and has given his opinion in Ex.P.5, the post-mortem certificate, that the deceased died out of extensive head injury and also shock and haemorrhage. e) Pending investigation, the Investigator came to know that the accused surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Papanasam. All the material objects recovered from the place of occurrence were subjected to chemical analysis by the Forensic Science Department, which resulted in two reports, namely Ex.P.8, the Biology Report and Ex.P.9, the Serologist's report. On completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the final report.

(3.) ADDED further the learned counsel that even assuming that the factual position as put forth by the prosecution is taken to have been proved, the act of the accused would not attract the penal provision of murder. Admittedly, there was a long pending quarrel between the accused and the deceased in respect of the land situated in between their houses. Even it was spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 4 that on the date of occurrence also, there was a quarrel. In that quarrel, the accused has taken a stick, which was lying aside and attacked the deceased. Thus, it was neither intentional nor pre-meditated, but it was due to sudden quarrel. Under these circumstances, the act of the accused would not be one of murder and hence this legal position has got to be considered by this court.