Madras High Court
Arumugam vs State Represented By Inspector Of ... on 14 March, 2012
Author: P.Devadass
Bench: N.Paul Vasanthakumar, P.Devadass
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/03/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Criminal Appeal (MD) No.428 of 2010 Arumugam ... Appellant/Accused Vs. State Represented by Inspector of Police, Kottaampatti Police Station in Cr.No.209 of 2006, Madurai District. ... Respondent/Complainant Prayer Appeal filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code to set aside the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Madurai, in S.C.No.349 of 2007 by his judgment dated 04/11/2008, and acquit the appellant from the charges. !For Appellant ... Mr.S.Jeyasingh ^For Respondent... Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, Additional Public Prosecutor - - - - - :JUDGMENT
P.DEVADASS ,J.
1. It is a case of matricide.
2. Arumugam/accused is second son of Karupayee. He married P.W.4 Deepa. They have two children. The spouses are separated. She is living in her parents house with her children. Accused is living with his mother in their house in V.Pudur in Melur Taluk in Madurai District.
3. On 13.07.2006, at about 4.30 p.m., in her house, accused cut his mother with M.O.5 bill-hook. She died on the spot. It was witnessed to by her elder son P.W.1 Raman. He is also the complainant in this case. Besides him, P.Ws.2 and 3 Periakarrupan and Rajangam witnessed the occurrence. Besides their oral evidence, there is medical evidence and recovery of material object.
4. In the circumstances, in the Sessions Case No.349 of 2007, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai, found him guilty under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life and fined him Rs.1,000/- with default sentence.
5. This appeal is as against the said finding and the sentence.
6. Mr.S.Jeyasingh, learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute the finding of the trial Court. He had confined his arguments only to the sentence aspect. We have also carefully perused the evidence. In the circumstances, we concur with the finding of the trial court that the accused had killed his mother.
7. In support of his plea for reducing the sentence the learned counsel for the appellant argued that it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it falls under exception IV to Section 300 I.P.C., consequently, his case will come under Section 304 Part I I.P.C. In the circumstances, the severity of the sentence may be lessened.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit the following as mitigating factors to bring the case under Section 304 Part I I.P.C.:
(1) The accused is jobless. He depended on his mother for food and for his expenses.
(2) On the occurrence day, till 4.30 p.m., the deceased did not provide him food, on account of that quarrel arose between them, in the circumstances, he lost his control, and thus the occurrence had taken place. (3) When P.Ws.3 and 7 asked him why he had killed his mother, he replied them that he did it, because she did not gave him food.
(4) The accused was also a mental patient for sometime. (5) He is also young. He was deserted by his wife. His children are also not with him.
9. On the other hand, Mr.K.S.Durai Pandian, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that prior to the occurrence, there was no quarrel. The accused had cut his mother indiscriminately. It is murder and nothing less of murder, his case will fall under Section 302 I.P.C. Killer of his own mother cannot be spared.
10. It is axiomatic that "all murders are culpable homicide, but not vice versa", that is to say, all murders are not culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is genus of which murder is species.
11. A culpable homicide falling under any one of the three classes, namely, 2ndly, 3rdly and 4thly in Section 300 I.P.C. amounts to murder. It is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.
12. Section 300 I.P.C. contains five Exceptions with certain restrictions/conditions. If the culpable homicide falls under any one of the Exceptions, it will not be murder, it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It will be punishable under Section 304 I.P.C. If it is an intentional act, it will fall under part I, if it is with knowledge, it will fall under part II. Both these parts differ in severity of punishment.
13. Now, we go to the two specific Exceptions 1 and 4 to Section 300 I.P.C., which makes the culpable homicide under certain circumstances not a murder.
14.
"Exception 1. - When culpable homicide is not murder. - Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos:
First. - That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly. - That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
Thirdly. - That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation. - Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Exception 4. - Culpable 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.
Explanation. - It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault."
15. These Exceptions centres around the mind of the offender, when the offence was committed. During that time due to grave and sudden provocation, if he loses his power of self-control and commits the offence, it was committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of passion, it will not be murder, it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
16. LORD JUSTICE GODDARD, C.J, in R. DUFFY (1949-1 ALL ER 932) defines provocation thus:
"Provocation is some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused which would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and temporary loss of self - control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or her for the moment not master of his mind."
17. The pivotal point in "provocation" is the offender having lost his mental balance, self-control due to the provocation caused to him or the situations under which he was so placed. But it should not be a self created or induced one.
18. With this principles in our mind let us see whether under any provocation, having lost his power of self-control, the appellant had killed his mother, so that his case would fall under the said Exceptions to Section 300 I.P.C., so that it could be excluded from Section 302 I.P.C. and brought under Section 304 part I I.P.C.
19. In her house, on 13.07.2006, at about 4.30 p.m., Karupayee, then 65 years old was cut by her accused son with M.O.5 bill-hook.
20. The cut injury was 15cm x Bone depth from occiput to nose curved in nature 4cm breath and brain depth. Brain matter lacerated, woozed out and there were multiple injuries on her left ear. She died on the spot. The accused pushed his mother violently down and cut her indiscriminately with M.O.5 bill-hook.
21. The occurrence time was not meals time. It was at about 4.30 p.m. The accused stated generally that because she is not giving him money and food, he had killed her.
22. The evidence on record does not show that prior to the occurrence there was quarrel between both. Nothing came from Karupayee to goad, provoke, instigate him to cut her. The accused came straightaway and cut her indiscriminately with M.O.5 bill-hook. She fell dead immediately. To apply Exception 4 to Section 300 I.P.C., the overtact should not be gruesome. It must be in a sudden fight and in a heat of passion. The offender should not have taken undue advantage and should not have acted in a cruel manner.
23. But, in this case, the deceased did not contribute anything provoking him to kill her. Prior to the occurrence, there was no quarrel between both. The weapon used is M.O.5 bill-hook. He had indiscriminately cut her. The murder is not only cruel but also horrible and shocking. It is an unusual act. He desired that his mother should die. It is an intentional act.
24. We cannot justify a son killing his mother because she had not given him food. An adult son killing an old unarmed woman, who is his mother will not be less of murder, to say otherwise, would be setting a bad example/precedent.
25. In the circumstances, the intentional act of the accused is clearly a culpable homicide amounting to murder falling under Section 300 I.P.C. and he is punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Thus, he has been rightly convicted and punished.
26. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant, in S.C.No.349 of 2007, on 04.11.2008, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai.
sj To (1) The Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.
(2) The Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No.I), Madurai.
(3) The District Collector, Madurai.
(4) The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Rural District, Madurai.
(5) The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Madurai.
(6) The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
(7) The Inspector of Police, Kottampatti Police Station Madurai District.