Madras High Court
Sahabudeen vs State Represented By
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan, N.Anand Venkatesh
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date of Reserving the Date of Pronouncing the
Judgment Judgment
09.09.2019 16.09.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A.(MD)No.399 of 2017
1.Sahabudeen
2.Ashraf Ali
3.Mohamed Salim
4.Syed Abuthaheer : Appellants
Vs.
State Represented by
the Inspector of Police
Erwadi Dharga Police Station
Ramanathapuram District
Crime No.145/2014 : Respondent
COMMON PRAYER: Criminal Appeals are filed under Section 374(2)
of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment dated
01.09.2017 in S.C.No.132 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District
and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram District.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Appellants : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha
For Respondent : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran
Additional Public Prosecutor
assisted by Mr.R.Senthilkumar
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
This criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 01.09.2017 in S.C.No.132/2015, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram.
2. The Trial Court framed four charges, as detailed below.
S.Nos. Penal Provisions Accused
1 120(B) IPC A1 to A4
2 342 IPC A2 to A4
3 302 r/w 34 IPC A2 to A4
4 302 IPC A1
3. By Judgment dated 01.09.2017, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused, as detailed below:-
http://www.judis.nic.in 3 Provisions Rank of Sentence of Fine amount under the imprisonment which accused convicted 342 IPC A1 To undergo rigorous Rs.500/-, in default, to to imprisonment for one undergo simple imprisonment A4 year for one month.
302 IPC A1 To undergo Rs.10,000/-, in default, to
imprisonment for life. undergo rigorous
imprisonment for two years.
302 r/w A2 To undergo Rs.10,000/- in default, to
34 IPC to imprisonment for life. undergo rigorous
A4 imprisonment for two years.
The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come up with this Criminal Appeal.
The case of the prosecution:
4. The complainant (P.W.-1 and father of deceased) was running a guest house at Keelakarai Taluk. 20 days prior to the occurrence, the complainant had taken cooking vessels and utensils on lease from A-2. It was taken on lease in order to enable the grandson of the complainant to feed the poor. There was some dispute between A-2 and the complainant with regard to the payment of rent for the vessels leased to the complainant. The amount of Rs.15,000/- remained http://www.judis.nic.in 4 unpaid by the complainant to A-2 and A-2 was putting pressure on the complainant to make the payment. A-2 gave two days time for the complainant to make the payment and the complainant was not able to make the amount ready and had sought for more time. A-2 did not agree and therefore, left with no other alternative, the complainant had handed over the necklace and bracelet belong to his daughter to A-2 and informed A-2 that he will get back the jewels after paying the balance amount of Rs.15,000/-. After two or three days, the son of the complainant (deceased) came and met the complainant and the complainant asked the deceased to pay the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- to A-2 and get back the jewelry that was handed over to him by the complainant. Accordingly, on 13.11.2014, at about 3.00 p.m., the deceased had gone to the shop of A-2 and gave him the balance amount of Rs.15,000/- and demanded for the jewels. A-2 is alleged to have refused to return back the jewels on the premise that one more vessel is yet to be returned back and till the same is returned back, the jewels will not be returned. This resulted in a quarrel for nearly 15 minutes and it is stated that P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 attempted to intervene and pacify the parties. However, by then, A-2, his son (A-3) and his brother (A-4), caught hold of the deceased and http://www.judis.nic.in 5 A-1 stabbed the deceased in his chest and his abdomen and the deceased fell down. Immediately, all the accused persons ran away from the place.
5. This was informed over phone by P.W.-2 to P.W.-1 and P.W.-1 rushed to the scene of occurrence, where, he found his son lying in a pool of blood. He was immediately taken in an auto-rickshaw, driven by P.W.-6 and taken to the hospital at Keelakarai and P.W.-1 was informed that his son has been brought dead and the same was recorded in Ex.P.-16 Accident Register at about 3.25 p.m. by P.W.-11, who was the Assistant Surgeon. Thereafter, a complaint (Ex.P-1) is said to have been given by P.W.-1 at about 6.00 p.m. before the respondent police and it was received by P.W.15, who was the Special Sub Inspector of Police and he registered an FIR (Ex.P-18) in Crime No.145/2014 for offences under Sections 341, 342 and 302 IPC and an express FIR was immediately sent to the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Ramanathapuram, which reached the Court at 10.00 p.m., through the Head Constable P.W.-13.
6. Immediately thereafter, P.W.-16 took over the investigation http://www.judis.nic.in 6 and he visited the scene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar and had drawn a rough sketch (Ex.P.-3 and Ex.P.-19) and had conducted an inquest over the body and the inquest report (Ex.P-20) was prepared. It was done in the presence of witness P.W.-7. The Investigating Officer proceeded to arrest all the accused persons on 14.11.2014 at about 10.30 a.m. and he recorded their confession statements in the presence of witnesses (P.W.-9 - Village Administrative Officer and one Muniyasamy) and effected recovery.
7. The Investigating Officer proceeded to record the statement of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter he collected the postmortem report [Ex.P-17], conducted by the Doctor (P.W.-11), which clearly stated that the deceased had died due to stab injuries over chest and abdomen. On completion of the investigation, he laid the final report.
8. After the framing of charges, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses [P.W.-1 to P.W.-16], marked 26 documents [Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-26] besides 11 material objects [M.O.-1 to M.O.-11]. http://www.judis.nic.in 7
9. After the completion of the examination of witnesses, the accused persons were questioned under Section 313(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by putting the incriminating materials against them collected during the trial and they denied the same as false.
10. The trial Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts against all the accused persons and passed a judgment convicting and sentencing the accused persons, as stated supra. Submissions:
11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants made the following submissions:
(1) P.W.-1 has stated during cross-examination that at about 6.00 p.m., the police came to the hospital and he narrated the entire incident to the police and the same was recorded by them. This earliest version given by P.W.-1 was not produced before the Court below.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 (2) P.W.-15, who was the Special Sub Inspector of Police, who received the complaint from P.W.-1, has specifically stated that P.W.-1 came to the police station at 6.00 p.m. and gave the complaint. This evidence goes contrary to the evidence of P.W.-1, since P.W.-1 was at the hospital at 6.00 p.m. and by then, the police had also reached the hospital.
(3) P.W.-1, in his cross-examination, has stated that he dictated the complaint and P.W.-4 wrote the same, but, however, P.W.-4 does not support this statement made by P.W.-1. Further P.W.-1 states that nobody attested the complaint. But, however, P.W.-2 had attested the complaint and the attestation was marked as Ex.P-2.
(4) P.W.-1 and his son had criminal cases against them and they had several enemies in the locality and they could have been the cause for the death of the son of P.W.-1.
(5) P.W.-2 to P.W.-4 were examined as witnesses to the incident. The version about the incident given by P.W.-3 was completely different from the version given by P.W-2. That apart P.W.-4 could not have seen http://www.judis.nic.in 9 this incident, since P.W.-2, in his cross-examination, specifically states that P.W-4 came to the scene of occurrence 15 minutes after the occurrence.
(6) The clothes of P.W.-2 were bloodstained, but, however, the same was not seized and sent for analysis. The analysis of the bloodstain in the clothes of P.W.-2 would have ensured that he was actually present in the scene of occurrence and the prosecution did not intentionally send the dress for analysis.
(7) P.W.-2 has specifically stated that the knife [M.O.-5] was there in the scene of occurrence and it was taken by the police from there. This version of P.W.-2 falsifies the so called recovery made by the Investigating officer.
(8) P.W.-2 has specifically stated in the cross-examination that he had not gone to the police station and attested in the complaint, but, however, the signature marked as Ex.P-2, shows as if he attested the complaint at the police station.
http://www.judis.nic.in 10 (9) P.W.-1 states that on the date of occurrence between 6.30 p.m. and 7.00 p.m., A-1 to A-4 were present in the police station. This goes completely contrary to the evidence of the Investigating Officer, who states that A-1 to A-4 were arrested only on 14.11.2014 at 10.30 a.m. (10) P.W.-2 to P.W.-4 are not only related witnesses, but also interested witnesses and their evidences cannot be relied upon without sufficient corroboration.
(11) P.W.-4 has stated in his evidence that he was standing near the State Bank ATM centre and talking with two of his friends, namely, Kasim and Tariq and both these persons have not been examined by the prosecution.
(12) There were many informations that were received by the police about the incident even before the FIR was registered at 6.00 p.m., and the earliest version was never revealed before the Court below and the accused persons have been unnecessarily roped in the case deliberately and the motive attributed is very unnatural, since for http://www.judis.nic.in 11 a balance amount of Rs.15,000/-, P.W.-1 could not have given a necklace and bracelet and if at all this was given to A-2, the Investigating Officer could have seized the jewels and that would have given some credence to the case of the prosecution.
(13) Even if it is taken that the prosecution has proved the offence of murder against the accused persons, the eyewitnesses have clearly spoken about the heated arguments that was going on between the accused persons and the deceased for nearly 15 minutes, which ultimately resulted in the deceased being stabbed twice by A-1 and the same had happened due to the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel on a grave and sudden provocation and therefore, the case can be brought within Exception IV to Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and this Court can consider reduction of punishment under Section 304 IPC.
12. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the State made the following submissions:
(1) The prosecution had examined 16 witnesses and all these witnesses supported the case of the prosecution.
http://www.judis.nic.in 12 (2) P.W.-2 to P.W.4, who are the eyewitnesses have substantially explained the manner in which, the murder took place.
(3) These witnesses were examined after nearly two years from the date of incident and therefore, some minor discrepancies and embellishments are bound to be there due to loss of memory and the same does not in any way affect the core of the evidence spoken by these eyewitnesses.
(4) The evidence of P.W.-6, who is the auto-rickshaw Driver, in whose vehicle the deceased was taken to the hospital, has corroborated the version of P.W.-2 to P.W.-4.
(5) The evidence of P.W.-15 clearly shows that P.W.-1 came to the police station at around 6.00 p.m. and an FIR was registered and thereafter it was sent to the concerned Court through P.W.-13 and it reached the Court at around 10.00 p.m. on the same day and this was also spoken to by the Investigating Officer P.W.-16.
(6) P.W.-16 arrives in the scene of occurrence, after the http://www.judis.nic.in 13 registration of the FIR, at about 7.00 p.m. and this was spoken to by P.W.-7, who was the witness in the rough sketch and observation mahazar. P.W.-16 has further stated that he had gone to the Government Hospital at Keelakarai at 7.00 a.m. on 14.11.2014 and conducted the inquest and prepared the report and submitted a requisition for conducting the postmortem. Thereafter, he had arrested A-1 to A-4 at about 10.30 a.m. on the same day.
(7) These sequence of events clearly supports the evidence of P.W.-2 to P.W.-4, who speak about the occurrence, which took place around 3.00 p.m. on 13.11.2014.
(8) The incident that has been narrated by P.W.-2 to P.W.-4 is corroborated by postmortem Doctor [P.W.-11], who has spoken about the injuries, which caused the death of the deceased and also the postmortem report, which specifically points out to the injuries, corroborating the version given by P.W.-2 to P.W.-4.
(9) The minor discrepancies pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants does not affect the core of the prosecution case and http://www.judis.nic.in 14 the evidence of the witnesses cannot be discarded merely on the ground of discrepancies and minor variations, pointed out in their evidence.
13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the de-facto complainant reiterated the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and adopted his arguments and he submitted that this is a clear case of murder, which was pre-meditated and the type of weapon that was used and the vital body part, which was attacked clearly brings the facts of the case within the third limb of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the learned counsel concluded his arguments by submitting that there is no ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and this criminal appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Discussion:
14. The case of the prosecution hinges upon the evidence of eye witnesses, who have been examined as P.W.-2 to P.W.-4. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that all these three eyewitnesses are from the same locality. P.W.-2 is working as a Priest at Erwadi Dargah. http://www.judis.nic.in 15 P.W.-3 and P.W.-4 are also working at Erwadi Dargah as Imam. These witnesses know the accused persons, since they also belong to the same locality. These witnesses also know P.W.-1 and they are related to P.W.-1. All the three witnesses talk about the incident consistently and they are also consistent, while attributing overt-act of each of the accused persons. There is some doubt with regard to the presence of P.W.-4 near the scene of occurrence, at the time, when the incident had taken place. This doubt occurs since P.W.-2, during cross- examination, specifically says that P.W.-4 came to the scene of occurrence 15 minutes after the incident. P.W.-4 was said to be standing near the State Bank ATM and talking with two of his friends, namely, Kasim and Tariq and these witnesses have not been examined by the prosecution to lend credence to the evidence of P.W.-4. In view of the same, this Court is not going to rely upon the evidence of P.W.-4. This therefore leaves this Court only with two eyewitnesses namely, P.W.-2 and P.W.-3.
15. P.W.-2 in his evidence states that he along with P.W.-3 were standing near the State Bank ATM and at that point of time, the deceased had come to the shop of A-2 and there was a heated http://www.judis.nic.in 16 argument that went on between the deceased and the accused persons and A-2, A-3 and A-4 physically held the deceased and A-1 attacked the deceased with a knife, which was kept concealed, in the chest and in the abdomen and all the accused persons had uttered that “that was the end of the deceased” and had fled away from the place. He further stated that he called P.W.-1 over phone and he came in an auto-rickshaw and he along with P.W.-1 went to the Keelakarai Government Hospital and the Doctor, on examining the deceased, informed that he has been brought dead. Thereafter, P.W.-1 gave a complaint before the police and he also signed in the same and his signature was marked as Ex.P.-2. This witness was cross-examined after nearly four months. During cross-examination, his evidence regarding the incident and the overt-act attributed against the accused persons was not discredited. Infact, he speaks about the fact that there was a heated argument for nearly 15 minutes before the incident took place. He also reiterated the presence of P.W.-3 along with him at the time of the incident. He has stated that at about 3.10 p.m., they had reached the Erwadi Government Hospital. This is in line with the entry made in the Accident Register (Ex.P16), which indicates that the deceased was brought around 3.25 p.m. to the hospital. http://www.judis.nic.in 17
16. Similarly, P.W.-3, in his evidence, talks about the fact that he was standing along with P.W.-2 near the State Bank ATM and he had almost described the incident in the same manner as described by P.W.-2.
17. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out certain discrepancies in the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 and contended that there is a difference in the version given by both these witnesses regarding the incident. This Court does not find any substantial variation in the version of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 with regard to the incident.
18. The discrepancies that were pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants is regarding the presence of the police in the scene of occurrence, presence of the weapon at the scene of occurrence and the manner, in which the complaint was given to the respondent police. These discrepancies, in the considered view of this Court, are very minor and does not in any way discredit the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 regarding the actual incident and the overt-act that was attributed to the accused persons.
19. This Court will now move into the evidence of P.W.-1, who is http://www.judis.nic.in 18 the father of the deceased. He was not present in the scene of occurrence and he was informed about the incident by P.W.-2. Thereafter, he had come to the scene of occurrence and taken the deceased in an auto-rickshaw along with P.W.-2 to the hospital. He was the one, who had set the law in motion by giving a complaint at about 6.00 p.m. on the same day, after returning back from the hospital.
20. It is true that P.W.-1 has stated during cross-examination that he had seen the accused persons in the police station on 13.11.2014 at about 6.30 p.m. - 7.00 p.m. and he also gave a statement to the police, while he was in the hospital at 6.00 p.m. and in which, he did not put any signature. There is also a minor discrepancy in the manner in which he reached the scene of occurrence. P.W.-1 states that only after he reached the scene of occurrence, he took the auto driven by P.W.-6 to the hospital, whereas, P.W.-6 states that P.W.-1 came to the auto stand and informed him about the incident and thereafter both of them came in the auto to the scene of occurrence.
21. P.W.-16, who is the Investigating Officer, has clearly stated in http://www.judis.nic.in 19 his evidence regarding the complaint given by P.W.-1 in the police station to the Special Sub Inspector of Police (P.W.-15), which resulted in an FIR (Ex.P.-18) and which was thereafter sent to the Court through P.W.-13 and which reached the Court at 10.00 p.m. on the same day. P.W.-16 had arrived at the scene of occurrence at around 6.30 p.m. on 13.11.2014 and he had prepared the observation mahazar and drawn the rough sketch on the same day around 7 p.m. in the presence of witness [P.W.-7]. He had conducted inquest over the body of the deceased at around 7.00 a.m. on 14.11.2014 and arrested the accused persons on the same day at 10.30 a.m. Based on the confession in the presence of P.W.-9, the Investigating Officer seized the material objects and the confession statements and the seizure memos were marked before the trial Court as Exs.P-5 to P.-12 and the objects seized were marked as M.Os.8 to 11. A requisition was made for autopsy and P.W.-11 conducted the autopsy and found the following injuries in the body of the deceased:
“External Examination: A stab injury was seen 13 cm from Xiphi Sternum below the chest in midline about 5 x 2 x 7 cm (depth). Another stab injury present over chest 5 cm from nipple (left) with 6 x 2 x 7 cm depth. Treachea midline. Neck – normal.
http://www.judis.nic.in 20 Thorax was opened. Lungs appears pale. Stab injury over apex of the heart from one end to other 5 cm depth. Collection of about 200 ml of clotted blood present in thoracic cavity. Abdomen was opened. Stomach contains undigested food particles. No poisonous odour was identified. Liver – stab injury of 3 x 2 x 1 cm over right lobe of lower spleen congested. Kidneys congested collection of 300 ml of clotted blood present in peritoneal. Cavity, intestines appears congested.
...
Opinion as to cause of death:
...
(b) The deceased would appear to have died of 12-24 hrs prior to autopsy due Haemo thorax & Haemo peritoneum following stab injury over chest & abdomen.”
22. The Doctor had opined that the death was due to injuries in the vital organs, loss of blood and shock and the postmortem report was marked as Ex.P-17.
23. The serology report (Ex.P-14) disclose that the blood found in Item 1, 3 to 11 were all Human blood and it belongs to Group “A”.
http://www.judis.nic.in 21
24. The entire reading of the deposition of P.W.-16, cogently explains the manner in which the investigation had taken place.
25. The sequence of events that has taken place in this case does not depict anything unnatural in the version that has been projected by the prosecution regarding the entire incident. Except the complaint (Ex.P.-1) given by P.W.-1, there was no other material to show that there was any earlier version regarding the incident that was recorded by the police. P.W.-1, while referring to the fact that police were present in the hospital even before he gave the complaint, need not necessarily mean that it was the police belonging to the respondent police station. Every Government Hospital has an outpost Police Station and policemen belonging to this outpost Police Station will also be present in the hospital, when they come to know about any such incident, in which, the deceased has been brought to the hospital. Mere presence of police in the hospital does not in any way throw any doubt in the version given by the prosecution to the fact that the complaint was given only at 6.00 p.m. on the date of occurrence. All the subsequent events have taken place only thereafter and the same http://www.judis.nic.in 22 has been cogently explained by P.W.-16.
26. In view of the above, the minor discrepancies that are found in the evidence of P.W.-1 regarding the complaint, regarding the presence of the police and the presence of the accused persons in the police station, does not affect the core of the prosecution case. Findings:
27. It is a settled principle of law that where the prosecution is able to prove the case beyond reasonable doubts through the evidence of eyewitnesses, the issue of motive takes a backseat and does not really matter, to substantiate the case of the prosecution. In this case, the motive that has been explained by the witnesses, namely, P.W.-1, P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-5 and P.W.-8 clearly shows that there was a dispute regarding the demand of money for the utensils and cooking vessels that were taken for lease by P.W.-1 from A-2. The evidence of these witnesses, lends credence to the case of the prosecution, with regard to the reason behind the incident.
28. It is true that P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 are related to P.W.-1 and the http://www.judis.nic.in 23 deceased. Just because they are related, it does not mean that their evidences can be discredited and they can be branded as interested witnesses. The relationship of witnesses with the deceased is not a ground to reject their testimony. Useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2007 (1) SCC 699 [Salim Sahab v. State of Madhyapradesh] and the latest judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 (1) MWN (Crl.) 487 [Manickaraj and another v. State rep. by the Inspector of Police, Alwarthirunagari Police Station, Thoothukudi District].
29. This Court does not find any ground to discard or discredit the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3, even though they are closely related to the deceased and P.W.-1.
30. The discrepancies that have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are minor in nature and it does not in any way discredit or shake the case of the prosecution. It is a settled law that undue importance should not be attached to omission, contradictions and discrepancies, which do not go to the root of the http://www.judis.nic.in 24 matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses. In this case, the discrepancies/contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants do not in any way go to the root of the matter or shake the basic version of the prosecution witnesses.
31. In this case, A-2 to A-4 were convicted and punished with the aid of Section 34 IPC. The evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 shows that A-2, A-3 and A-4 were holding the deceased and preventing him from moving and thereby facilitated A-1 to stab the deceased. In order to attract the provisions of Section 34 of IPC, which lays down the principle of joint liability in doing of a criminal act, the existence of common intention animating from the accused persons leading to the doing of a criminal act in furtherance of such intention is essential. The dominant feature of Section 34 of IPC is the element of intention and participation in action in furtherance of the common intention and both these ingredients have been fulfilled in this case, by virtue of the evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3.
32. In the considered view of this Court, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts against the accused http://www.judis.nic.in 25 persons.
33. This Court will now consider the last issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants, wherein, he has also taken the alternative plea of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, attempting to bring this case under Exception IV to Section 300 IPC. If the learned counsel for the appellants is able to make out a case by bringing it within the Exception to Section 300 IPC, the punishment will get reduced under Section 304 IPC.
34. The evidence of P.W.-2 and P.W.-3 clearly shows that there was a heated argument between the deceased and the accused persons for nearly 15 minutes. This ultimately ended in the accused persons attacking the deceased and causing his death.
35. In order to bring the case under exception IV of Section 300 IPC, the murder must have been committed without premeditation and in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the accused taking undue advantage or acting in a cruel and unusual manner. The essence of Exception IV of Section 300 IPC is http://www.judis.nic.in 26 that the 'heat of passion clouds the man's sober reasoning and urges him to commit certain acts, which he would not have committed otherwise'. There is an element of provocation even in Exception IV, as in Exception (I) to Section 300 of IPC. To bring a case within exception IV, all the ingredients mentioned in the said exception must be found.
36. In the present case, even as per the evidence of P.W.-1, who is the father of the deceased, there was no previous enmity between him, A-1 and A-2. There was only some misunderstanding on the payment of amount towards taking the utensils on lease. Therefore, there was no premeditation on the part of the accused persons to commit this murder. There was also a quarrel between the parties. There is nothing to show that there was a fight between the parties. The word “fight” conveys something more than a verbal quarrel. In order to constitute a fight, a minimum that is necessary is that the parties must come to blows with each other. There is no evidence to show that the parties came to blows in this case and the only evidence that is available is that there was a wordy quarrel. The fact that A-2 to A-4 physically held the deceased and prevented him from moving and http://www.judis.nic.in 27 thereby enabled A-1 to stab the deceased twice in the vital parts, namely, the chest and abdomen, shows that the accused persons had taken undue advantage and caused the death of the deceased. This is further corroborated by the nature of injuries that are found in the postmortem report (Ex.P-17), which has been extracted supra.
37. In view of the above finding, this Court is not convinced to bring this case within Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC and therefore, this is a clear case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Conclusion:
38. In the light of the above reasonings given by this Court, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court and the judgment of the trial Court is hereby confirmed and accordingly, the criminal appeal is dismissed.
39. It is brought to the notice of this Court that A-4 was granted bail by this Court. In view of this Court confirming the judgment of the trial Court, the bail bond executed by A-4 is hereby cancelled and he is http://www.judis.nic.in 28 directed to surrender before the Court below to serve the sentence. If A-4 does not surrender before the Court below, the respondent police is directed to secure A-4 and produce him before the Court below in order to enable the Court below to send him to custody to serve the sentence.
[S.V.N., J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
16.09.2019
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
RR
To
1.The Additional District & Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram District.
2.The Inspector of Police Erwadi Dharga Police Station Ramanathapuram District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 29 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J RR Pre delivery Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.399 of 2017 16.09.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in