Madras High Court
Vallavan @ Vallavarasu vs State Through on 11 November, 2019
Author: S.Vaidyanathan
Bench: S.Vaidyanathan, N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 11.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018
and
Crl.M.P.(MD) No.2166 of 2018
Vallavan @ Vallavarasu ... Petitioner/Appellant/
Sole Accused
Vs.
State through
The Inspector of Police
Puliyankudi Police Station
Tirunelveli District,
(In Crime No.59/2010) ... Respondent/ Respondent/
Complainant
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of
Criminal Procedure to call for the entire records connected to the
judgment in S.C.No.303 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District
Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli (Fast Track No.1, Tirunelveli) dated
29.01.2011 and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed against
the appellant.
1/27
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018
2
For Appellant : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondent : Mr.M.Chandrasekaran,
Additional Public Prosecutor
JUDGMENT
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
The sole accused aggrieved by the judgment of theAdditional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli made in S.C.No.303 of 2010, dated 29.01.2011, convicting and sentencing the appellant in the following manner, has preferred the Criminal Appeal before this Court.
S.No Provisions Imprisonment Fine
under which
the appellant
was convicted
1 341 of I.P.C 1 month Simple -
Imprisonment
2 302 Life Rs.5,000/-
of imprisonment in default, to undergo
I.P.C. Simple Imprisonment for
a further period of 1 year
3 506(ii) 1 year Rigorous Rs.1,000/-
of Imprisonment in default, to undergo
I.P.C. Simple Imprisonment for
a further period of three
months
2/27
http://www.judis.nic.in
Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018
3
2. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was working as a watch man in Blue Metal Crusher factory belonging to P.W.1 The appellant is a daily coolie. On 01.03.2010, at about 5:00 p.m., he went to the Blue Metal Crusher factory and had asked the deceased Rs.100/- for the purpose of drinking liqour.The deceased refused to pay the money and there was a wordy quarell. The next day (i.e.) on 02.03.2010 at about 4:00 p.m., the appellant is said to have physically restrained the deceased and abused him in filthy language and had grabbed the stick (M.O.1) from the hand of the deceased and had attacked him indiscriminately. When the co-workers and the owner of the Crusher came to the scene of occurece, the appellant had also threatened them with dire conseqences.
3. The deceased was taken to Puliyankudi Government Hospital and he was treated by the doctor (P.W.10) and he was referred to the Tirunelveli Government Hospital and on the way, the deceased had died at about 11:00 p.m. 3/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 4
4. After the deceased was taken to Puliyankudi Government Hospital, the information was sent to the Puliyankudi Police Station at about 5:25 p.m on 02.3.2010 and the Special Sub Inspector of Police(P.W.14) went to the hospital and found the deceased in an unconscious state. He recorded the statement of P.W.1 in the Hospital in the presence of P.W.2 at about 5:45 p.m. and at about 6:15 p.m., an F.I.R.(Ex.P.18) was registered in Crime No.59 of 2010 for the offence under Sections 341, 302 and 506(ii) of I.P.C.
5. The Special Sub Inspector of Police had sent the statement of P.W.1 and the inpatient intimation of the hospital to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri.
6. The deceased died on the same day at about 11:00 p.m. In the mean time, the investigation was taken up by the Inspector of Police (P.W.16) and he went to the scene of crime at about 7:15p.m. and in the presence of the witness (P.W.7), prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P.6) and the rough sketch (Ex.P.20). He also recovered 4/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 5 the stick (M.O.1) which was a broken piece and also the material objects in the scene of crime, in the presence of the witness. He thereafter asked the photographer(P.W.8) to take photographs of the scene of crime.
7. The Investigating Officer went to get the information regardng the death of the deceased and he prepared the alteration report (Ex.P.21) and had sent it to the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri through the Head Constable(P.W.12) and it reached the Court on 03.03.2010 at about 2:30 a.m. He conducted the inquest over the dead body in the presence of Panchayatars and prepared the inquest report (Ex.P.22). He thereafter sent the dead body through P.W.13 with a requisition to conduct the postmortem. He also recovered the clothes from the dead body of the deceased and had sent it to the Court under Form-95 with a requisition to send the same to the Forensic Laboratory.
8. The Investigating Officer(P.W.16), on the basis of the intimation, arrested the appellant on 04.03.2010 at about 3:00 p.m. 5/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 6 and based on the voluntary confession said to have been given by the appellant, had recovered the stick in the presence of the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9). Thereafter, the appellant was produced before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri and he was remanded to judicial custody. The Investigating Officer also recorded the statements of some of the witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C.
9. The Investigating Officer was transferred and therefore, the further investgation was taken up by a new Inspector of Police (P.W.17), who proceeded to record the statements of the other witnesses under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. and he also collected the postmortem certificate(Ex.P.19), serological Report (Ex.P.3) and also the report of the doctor (Ex.P.14), who gave opinion regarding the hyoid bone that was found broken in the body of the deceased. On completion of the investigation, the final report was filed on 06.04.2010, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri.
10. The case was committed to the file of the Additional District Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli (Fast Track No.1, Tirunelveli) and charges 6/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 7 were framed for the offence under Sections 341, 302 & 506(ii) of I.P.C. The prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.17 and marked exhibits Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.22 and exhibited M.O.1 to M.O.7. The incriminating materials that were collected during the course of the trial were put to the appellant by way of questioning him under Section 313 (1) (b) of Cr.P.C. and he denied the same as false.
11. The trial Court after considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, came to a categorical conclusion that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and proceeded to convict and sentence the appellant in the manner cited supra.
12. Mr.Alagumani, learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions:-
➢ The prosecution had examined P.W.1, 2 & 5 as eye witnesses and it is highly doubtful as to whether they were actually present in the scene of occurence during the time of the alleged occurence;7/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 8 ➢ If really these three eye witnesses were present in the scene of occurence, they would have taken some steps to take the deceased to the hospital immediately. Admitedly, in this case, the incident had taken place at 3:00 p.m and the deceased was taken to the hospital only between 3:45 p.m. and 4:00 p.m.;
➢ The deceased was said to have been taken in an ambulance that came from the hospital and the ambulance driver was not examined as a prosecution witness and there was no evidence to show as to who informed the Ambulance driver to come to the scene of occurence;
➢ The incident had taken place on 02.03.2010 at about 3:00 p.m. and an F.I.R. came to be registered at about 6:15 p.m. and it reached the Court only the next day at 2:30 a.m. and there is no explanation regarding the delay from the side of the prosecution;
➢ The appellant never intended to murder the deceased and it is very clear from the evidence of the eye witnesses, who have stated that the appellant threatened them by saying 8/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 9 that he will beat them with a stick in the same manner in which, he had beaten the deceased;
➢ The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the facts of this case will not fall within the four limbs of Section 300 of I.P.C.;
➢ The weapon that was used for the attack and the fact that the deceased had died only at about 11:00 p.m., clearly shows that if the deceased had been taken to the hospital on time, there were chances of saving his life and therefore, even if the case of the prosecution is taken to have been proved, the present case will only attract the offence of culpabale homicide not amounting to murder and therefore, the appellant is liable to be punished only under Section 304 of I.P.C. and ➢ The appellant has already undergone incarceration for the last 9 years and 8 months and therefore, the punishment can be confined to the period already undergone by the appellant.
9/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 10
13. Per contra, Mr.M.Chandrasekaran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent police made the following submissions:-
➢ The evidence of P.W.1, 2 & 5, who are the eye witnesses, clearly clinches the case of the prosecution and there is absolutely no ground to disbelieve their evidence;
➢ The evidence of the Doctor (P.W.10), who gave the initial treatment to the deceased and the Accident Register which was marked as (Ex.P.10) clearly shows that the deceased was brought to the hospital by P.W.2 at about 5:15 p.m. on 02.03.2010 and the deceased was found to be in an unconscious state bleeding from both his nostrils and ears with injuries all over the head and neck portion;
➢ Based on the information from the hospital, P.W.14 had gone to the Hospital and taken the statement of P.W.1 which was attested by P.W.2 and an F.I.R came to be registered immediately;
➢ The arrest and recovery has been clearly spoken by the Village Administrative Officer, who was examined as P.W.9 and the stick 10/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 11 (M.O.1) which was used for the attack was also recovered and from the evidence of the doctors (P.W.10 and P.W.15), it is clear that the injuries that were sustained by the deceased are capable of being sustained if a person is attacked with M.O.1; ➢ The evidence of the Postmortem doctor (P.W.15) and the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.19) clearly shows that the cause of death was only due to the attack made by the appellant with the stick (M.O.1) and ➢ The facts of the present case squarely falls within the requirements of Section 300 of I.P.C and the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the judgment of the Court below and it is liable to be dismissed.
14. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and has also carefully assessed the oral and documentary evidence available before this Court.
11/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 12
15. This Court has carefully assessed the evidence of P.W.1, 2 & 5 and their evidence is clear and cogent and there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that they have indeed seen the occurence and there is nothing to discredit their evidence. P.W.1 is the owner of the Crusher factory and P.W.2 and P.W.5 are the co-workers.
16. The deceased, after being attacked, was taken in an ambulance at about 3:45 p.m. and he was admitted at the Government Hospital, Puliyankudi at about 5:15 p.m. by P.W.2. The Doctor (P.W.10) found that the deceased was unconscious, bleeding from both the nostrils, left ear present and face completely swollen. The Accident Register(Ex.P.10) reveals the following injuries in the body of the appellant.
“Injuries:
1) Swelling and deformity of right forearm present. Fracture fore arm bones.
2) Swelling of the left hand(NC) present.
3) Fracture of the mandible on right side and near middle present.12/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 13
4) A lacerated injury about 5cm X 1 cm X 3 cm present near the chin;
5) Left side of the face is swollen and hard on due to underlying blood;
6) Contusion injury over the neck present;
7) Fracture of clavicle near the medical end present;
8) Left ear lobe is torn irregularly above the lobule;
9) Lacerated injury on forehead 5cm x ½ cm x ½ cm multiple injuries”.
17. Finding that the deceased was in a very serious condition, he was referred to the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli and on the way, he died and the deceased was kept in a mortuary at the Government Hospital, Tirunelveli.
18. The postmortem doctor, who was examined as P.W.15 has clearly spoken about the injuries sustained by the deceased and has stated that the injuries are capable of being sustained if a person is attacked with a weapon like M.O.1. The postmortem doctor had given the postmortem certificate (Ex.P.19) and the following injuries are mentioned in the postmortem certificate: 13/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 14 “External Injuries:
1) A cut injury 5cm x ½ cm x ½ cm over the forehead region with sutured marks;
2) A cut injury 5cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over the chin region near midline fracture of Mandible near midline and left side mandible;
3) Left ear lobe is torn, irregularly above the lobule bloody discharge clotted over left ear present;
4) Contusion injury over the neck region present;
5) Tooth loss over upper lateral incisor tooth region and (NC) tooth found over the lower torn 8/7 (torn) and deformity over (torn).
Hyoid Bobe: Fracture right side of hyoid bone present. Lungs: No injuries, normal.
Abdomen, Stomach: pale contains 150 ml of coloured fluid mixed with food particles.
Intestine: Pale no injuries. No blood found in peritoneal cavity. Both kidneys are pale, no injuries. Spleen pale.
“External Injuries:
No visible injuries. The following items are preserved and sent for chemical analysis. 1) Stomach and its contents
2) Intestine and its contents 3) Liver 4) Kidney 5) Hyoid bone 6) Preservative (nacl).14/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 15 The above items were examined and posion was not detected in any of them. Hyoid bone examination levels. Antemortem fracture of hyoid bone noted on the left side. Bone Case No.5/2010 dated 17.03.2010.
Opinion as to cause of death:
(a) Reserved pending report of chemical analysis
(b) The deceased could appear to have died of shock and Haemmorrhage due to multiple injuries.”
19. It is seen that in the postmortem certificate, there is reference to a fracture of the right side of the hyoid bone of the deceased. For this purpose, the doctor (P.W.11) was examined and he had categorically stated that the hyoid bone had broken even before the death of the deceased and the certificate was issued by him was marked as Ex.P.14.
20. The arrest and recovery has been properly established by the prosecution and the evidence of the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.9) substantiates the same.
15/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 16
21. A combined reading of all the above evidence clearly shows that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubts and there is absolutely no ground to suspect the occurence in the manner in which it has been projected by the prosecution.
22. The only ground that requires consideration in this case is whether the facts of the present case will fall within the requirements of Section 300 of IPC. For this purpose, it is necessary to examine the evidence of P.W.1 & P.W.2. P.W.1, in his evidence has stated as follows:-
“mg;nghJ ma;nah vd;W rj;jk; nfl;lJ. Mg;nghJ ehd; mrh.1> Virah> My;gh;l;> fnzrd; Mfpnahh; Xo ngha; ghh;jn; jhk;. Vjphp td;dph; itj;jpUe;j fk;igg; gpLq;fp td;dpaiu moj;Jf; bfhz;oUe;jhh;. ehq;fs; ngha; mof;fhnj mof;fhnj brhd;ndhk;. mjw;F vjphp vq;fs; fpl;nl te;jhy; td;dpaiu mog;gJ nghy; cq;fisa[k; mog;ngd; vd;W kpul;odh;. td;dpaUf;F bew;wp> eho> fhJ clk;gpy; if> fhy;> clk;gpy; gy ,lq;fspy; fhaq;fs; ,Ue;jd. fk;g[ behWq;fpapUe;jJ. ghjp fk;g[ fPnH fple;jJ. ghjp fk;g[ ifapy; itj;jpUe;jhh;.” P.W.2 has also spoken about the incident in the same manner.
23.It is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 that the appellant did not go the scene of occurence with an intention to cause the 16/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 17 death of the deceased. There was a quarell with the deceased and the appellant had grabbed the stick(M.O.1) from the deceased, who was working as a night watch man in the Crusher unit and had attacked him with the said stick in his head and other parts of the body. The incident had taken place at about 3:00 p.m. and P.W.1, who is the owner of the Crusher, categorically admits that, no one gave any first aid to the deceased and no attempt was made to take the deceased in a vehicle owned by P.W.1 and the deceased was lying without any help for nearly an hour and only between 3:45 p.m. and 4:00 p.m., he was taken in an Ambuance to the Government Hospital. Ultimately, the deceased died only at about 11:00 p.m. The manner in which the incident had taken place clearly shows that the appellant did not come to the scene of crime with an intention to commit the murder of the deceased. It will be relevant to rely upon the classical judgment of Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1958 SC 465. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereunder:
“8) It was argued with much circumlocution that the facts set out above do not disclose an offence of murder because the prosecution has not proved that there was an 17/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 18 intention to inflict a bodily injury that was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Section 300, “thirdly” was quoted:
" If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."
It was said that the intention that the section requires must be related, not only to the bodily injury inflicted, but also to the clause, "and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."
9) This is a favourite argument in this kind of case but is fallacious. If there is an intention to inflict an injury that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, then the intention is to kill and in that event, the "thirdly " would be unnecessary because the act would fall under the first part of the section, namely-
" If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death."
In our opinion, the two clauses are disjunctive and separate. The first is subjective to the offender:
"If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person.” 18/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 19 It must, of course, first be found that bodily injury was caused and the nature of the injury must be established, that is to say, whether the injury is on the leg or the arm or the stomach, how deep it penetrated, whether any vital organs were cut and so forth. These are purely objective facts and leave no room for inference or deduction: to that extent the enquiry is objective; but when it comes to the question of intention, that is subjective to the offender and it must be proved that he had an intention to cause the bodily injury that is found to be present.
10) Once that is found, the enquiry shifts to the next clause-
"and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death."
The first part of this is descriptive of the earlier part of the section, namely, the infliction of bodily injury with the intention to inflict it, that is to say, if the circumstances justify an inference that a man's intention was only to inflict a blow on the lower part of the leg, or some lesser blow, and it can be shown that the blow landed in the region of the heart by accident, then, though all injury to the heart is shown to be present, the intention to inflict ail injury in that region, or of that nature, is not proved. In that case, the 19/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 20 first part of the clause does not come into play. But once it is proved that there was an intention to inflict the injury that is found to be present, then the earlier part of the clause we are now examining-
" and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted "
is merely descriptive. All it means is that it is not enough to prove that the injury found to be present is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature; it must in addition be shown that the injury is of the kind that falls within the earlier clause, namely, that the injury found to be present was the injury that was intended to be inflicted. Whether it was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature is a matter of inference or deduction from the proved facts about the nature of the injury and has nothing to do with the question of intention.
11) In considering whether the intention was to inflict the injury found to have been inflicted, the enquiry necessarily proceeds on broad lines as, for example, whether there was an intention to strike at a vital or a dangerous spot, and whether with sufficient force to cause the kind of injury found to have been inflicted. It is, of course, not necessary to enquire into every last detail as, for instance, whether the prisoner intended to have the bowels fall out, or whether he intended to penetrate the 20/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 21 liver or the kidneys or the heart. Otherwise, a man who has no knowledge of anatomy could never be convicted, for, if he does not know that there is a heart or a kidney or bowels, be cannot be said to have intended to injure them. Of course, that is not the kind of enquiry. It is broad based and simple and based on common sense: the kind of enquiry that " twelve good men and true could readily appreciate and understand.
12) To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it can bring a case under Section 300, “thirdly"
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present ;
Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations.
Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.21/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 22 This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
13) Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under Section 300, “thirdly”. It does not matter that there was no intention to cause death. It does not matter that there was Do intention even to cause an injury of a kind that is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature (not that there is any real distinction between the two). It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to cause death. Once the intention to cause the bodily injury actually found to be present is proved, the rest of the enquiry is purely objective and the only question is whether, as a matter of purely objective inference, the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. No one has a licence to run around inflicting injuries that are sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and claim that they are not guilty of murder. If they inflict injuries of that kind, they must face the consequences; and they can only escape if it can be shown, or reasonably deduced that the injury was accidental or otherwise unintentional.22/27
http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 23 ....
17) It is true that in a given case the enquiry may be linked up with the seriousness of the injury. For example, if it can be proved, or if the totality of the circumstances justify an inference, that the prisoner only intended a superficial scratch and that by accident his victim stumbled and fell on the sword or spear that was used, then of course the offence is not murder. But that is not because the prisoner did not intend the injury that he intended to inflict to be as serious as it turned out to be but because he did not intend to inflict the injury in question at all. His intention in such a case would be to inflict a totally different injury. The difference is not One of law but one of fact; and whether the conclusion should be one way or the other is a matter of proof, where necessary, by calling in aid all reasonable inferences of fact in the absence of direct testimony. It is not one for guess-work and fanciful conjecture.”
24. From the evidence that is seen in the present case, the weapon that was used was a stick(M.O.1) which was grabbed from the hands of the deceased, which was in his possession while he was on duty as a night watch man and the appellant had no intention to cause 23/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 24 death or bodily harm to the deceased, which is clear from the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and the deceased was not given any treatment for nearly one hour after the incident. The deceased ultimately died only at about 11:00 p.m. Therefore, this case can be brought only within the second limb of Section 299 of I.P.C. and there was no intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder.
25. The facts of the present case can be brought only within the 2nd limb of Section 299 of I.P.C. and it will also be relevant to extract explanation (2) to Section 299 of I.P.C.
“299. Culpable homicide — Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. ....
Explanation 2 — Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.” 24/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 25
26. This Court finds that the facts and circumstances does not satisfy the requirments of Section 300 of I.P.C. and it does not fall within the four limbs of Section 300. This case can at the best be brought within the second limb of Section 299 of I.P.C. Therefore, the appellant is liable to be punished under part (1) of Section 304 of I.P.C.
27. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant has been serving the sentence for a period of 9 years and 8 months and therefore, in the interest of justice, the punishment can be confined to the period already undergone by the appellant.
28. In the result, the conviction and sentence imposed by the Court below is modified and the present case falls within the culpable homicide not amounting to murder and the appellant is punished under part (1) of Section 304 of I.P.C. and sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is directed to be released from the jail forthwith, if his confinement is not required in other cases.
25/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 26
29. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, connected Crl.M.P.(MD) No.2166 of 2018 is closed.
[S.V.N., J.] & [N.A.V., J.]
11.11.2019
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
sts
To
1. The Additional District Sessions Court, (Fast Track No.1, Tirunelveli).
Tirunelveli.
2. The Inspector of Police, Puliyankudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District, (In Crime No.59/2010)
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
26/27 http://www.judis.nic.in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 27 S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
AND N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.
sts Judgment made in Crl.A.(MD)No.135 of 2018 Dated:
11.11.2019 27/27 http://www.judis.nic.in