CRL A/580/2018 of MANOHARAN, M/A.33 YEARS Vs STATE BY on 7 October 2026

JUDGMENT

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, who has been convicted for the offence under Section 304 (II) of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “the IPC”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six weeks. 2(i) It is the case of the prosecution that on 18.11.2023 at about 4.45 p.m., the appellant and PW1 were engaged in a wordy altercation; that the deceased, who was known to PW1, had come to visit PW1, intervened and supported PW1; that the appellant enraged, abused the deceased in filthy language, held his neck and slapped him on his cheek, as a result of which, the deceased fell on a stone nearby, sustained head injuries and succumbed to the injuries.

(ii) On the complaint [Ex.P1] given by PW1, an FIR [Ex.P5] was registered in Cr.No.703 of 2013 by PW10, the Sub-Inspector of Police. PW11, the Inspector of Police took up the investigation, went to the scene of occurrence, prepared the observation mahazar [Ex.P2] and rough sketch [Ex.P6]. He conducted inquest and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P7]. He sent the body for postmortem and after examining all the witnesses and obtaining the postmortem certificate, he filed a final report on 08.01.2014 against the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tiruvannamalai.

(iii) On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and was made over to the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, for trial, which was taken on file as S.C.No.109 of 2014. The trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty'.

(iv) To prove its case, the prosecution had examined 11 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked 8 exhibits as Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. When the appellant was questioned u/s.313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant neither examined any witness nor marked any document on his side.

(v) The trial Court believed the evidence of witnesses and held that the appellant was guilty of attacking the deceased. However, the trial Court found that the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was not made out; that the appellant was guilty only for the offence under Section 304(II) of the IPC; and hence, sentenced him as stated above. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the instant appeal is filed.

3. (i) Mr.S.Suresh, learned counsel for the appellant, in his submissions has not seriously challenged the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, as regards the involvement of the appellant in the occurrence.

(ii) The learned counsel however, would submit that even if the evidence is accepted to be true, the offence under Section 304(II) of the IPC would not be made out; that the appellant had no intention to cause the death of the deceased; that the alleged occurrence took place due to a sudden quarrel; that the appellant had only slapped the deceased and the deceased fell down and hurt himself; and that therefore, only an offence under Section 323 of the IPC, would be made out.

4. Ms.Sharada Vivek, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, per contra submitted that there is no infirmity whatsoever in the finding of guilt recorded by the Court holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 304(II) of the IPC; and that since the learned Sessions Judge has awarded a lenient sentence, the judgment does not warrant any interference.

5. As stated above, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses. PW1 is an eyewitness to the occurrence. PW2 is the wife of the deceased and is a hearsay witness. PW3 is another relative of the deceased and is also a hearsay witness. PW4 is a witness to the observation mahazar [Ex.P2] PW5 is the witness to the confession of the appellant. PW6 is the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem on the deceased and had issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P3]. PW7 and PW8 are the Constables, who had assisted the investigating officer. PW9 is the Scientific Officer of Forensic Science Laboratory and had issued the certificate [Ex.P4]. PW10 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who had registered the FIR. PW11 is the investigating officer, who had conducted the investigation and filed the final report.

6. From the above narration, it could be seen that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of PW1. PW1 had deposed that on the date of occurrence, the appellant came to her house and abused her; that at that time, the deceased intervened; and that the appellant enraged by such intervention had attacked on the cheek of the deceased, as a result of which, the deceased fell down unconscious. PW1 has not been discredited in any manner. PW1’s evidence as regards the manner of occurrence is cogent and convincing.

7. PW2 and PW3 are the relatives of the deceased, who came to place of occurrence, on coming to know of the occurrence and they had seen the deceased lying down at the place of the occurrence. Their evidence corroborates the evidence of PW1 to that extent.

8. The postmortem doctor [PW6] had noted an injury on the right forehead measuring 2x2cms and had also found that there was a fracture in the skull. The evidence of the doctor, therefore, suggests that the deceased had sustained grievous injury. Nothing has been elicited in his cross-examination to suggest otherwise.

9. Thus, the prosecution had established that the deceased was attacked by the appellant, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained a grievous hurt. Though, initially he was charged for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC, the trial Court held him guilty of the offence under Section 304(II) of the IPC.

10. The question is whether the appellant can be held guilty even for the offence under Section 304(II) of the IPC. The act of the appellant was not premeditated. It is only when the deceased intervened in the wordy altercation between the appellant and PW1, the appellant is said to have attacked the deceased. The appellant is said to have slapped on the cheeks of the deceased. The facts do not reveal that the act of the appellant was intended to cause an injury that is likely to cause death or that the appellant knew that the injury is likely to cause death. The intention was certainly not to cause death. Therefore, the appellant cannot be held guilty of culpable homicide. However, the Act of the appellant slapping the deceased had led to his fall and had caused grievous hurt, as could be seen from the evidence of the doctor. Therefore, the appellant is only guilty of the offence under Section 325 of the IPC.

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and age of the appellant, this Court is of the view that it would be appropriate to sentence the appellant to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,10,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months for the said offence. On deposit of the fine amount, the wife of the deceased i.e., PW2, shall be paid a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

12. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal stands partly allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant in S.C.No.109 of 2014 dated 28.08.2018 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai, is modified as follows:

(i) Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 304(II) of the IPC, by the trial Court is set aside and instead, the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC;

(ii) the appellant is sentenced to six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,10,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 325 of the IPC.

(iii) It is directed that the period of sentence already undergone by the appellant shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.;

(iv) Fine amount, if any paid earlier, shall be adjusted towards the fine amount now imposed;

(v) On deposit of the fine amount, the wife of the deceased i.e., PW2, shall be paid a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-;

(vi) The appellant, has been granted suspension of sentence by this Court vide order dated 24.09.2018 in Crl.MP.No.12705 of 2018 and therefore, if the appellant has not undergone the period of sentence imposed by this Court, or default sentence for non- payment of fine, he may be secured to undergo the remaining period of sentence, forthwith.

13. The respondent shall communicate the copy of this order to PW2, viz., Mrs.Thasami, W/o.Murugan, the deceased. 07-10-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No ars

To

1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai.

2. The Inspector of Police, Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station, Tiruvannamalai District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

SUNDER MOHAN, J. ars CRL A No. 580 of 2018 07-10-2026