CRL A/208/2021 of VIJI@VIJAYAKUMAR Vs THE STATE REP.BY on 30 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by N.Sathish Kumar J.)

Challenging the judgment passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet, in S.C.No.202 of 2015, dated 26.03.2021, convicting the appellant/A1 of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment, A1 has filed the above Criminal Appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution is as follows : The deceased Narayanan is the father of P.W.1. P.W.2 is the brother of P.W.1. On 29.12.2013 at about 09.30 p.m., when P.W.1, P.W.2 and the deceased were standing in the street, A1 and A2 came there and created a problem with P.W.2 for talking to one Uma Lenin, with whom, the accused were not in good relationship. In that altercation, A1 hit the deceased with an iron rod (M.O.1) on his head, due to which, the deceased fell down bleeding. When P.W.2 tried to prevent, A2 hit P.W.2 with a wooden log (M.O.2) on his left ear, due to which, he fell down. Immediately thereafter, the accused ran away from the place.

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

3. P.W.2 (brother of P.W.1) is the injured witness. He has stated that, on the date of occurrence, when he (P.W.2), P.W.1 and the deceased were standing in front of their house, A1 and A2 came there and abused them and threatened them of dire consequences and A1 hit the deceased on his head with an iron rod (M.O.1). When he (P.W.2) tried to prevent the same, A2 hit him with a wooden log (M.O.2) on his left ear. On seeing others coming, the accused ran away from the place.

4. P.W.6 and P.W.7 (neigbours of the deceased) are the eye-witnesses. They have stated that, on 29.12.2013 at about 09.30 p.m., A1 and A2 came there and picked up a quarrel with P.W.2 and in that altercation, A1 hit the deceased with an iron rod (M.O.1) on his head and A2 hit P.W.2 with a wooden log on the side of his head. Then, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence.

5. P.W.4 has stated that, on hearing the sound, he came out of his house and saw the deceased and P.W.2 bleeding and he was informed that A1 and A2 had attacked them.

6. Both the injured were initially taken to the Arakkonam Government Hospital. P.W.9 (Medical Officer attached to Arakkonam Government

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

Hospital) treated P.W.2 and he noted a laceration of 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the left ear and issued Accident Register (Ex.P5).

7. After giving first aid, the injured father of P.W.1 was taken to Kancheepuram Meenakshi Hospital. Again, he was referred to Chennai Rajiv Gandhi Government Hospital.

8. Meanwhile, P.W.1 lodged a complaint (Ex.P1) with the respondent Police. On receipt of the complaint (Ex.P1), P.W.14 (Sub-Inspector of Police) registered an FIR in Crime No.297 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC on 30.12.2013 at 06.00 hours as against A1 and A2. The FIR is marked as Ex.P8.

9. After registration of the FIR (Ex.P8), P.W.14 (Sub-Inspector of Police) went to the place of occurrence and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P9) in the presence of witnesses P.W.7 and one Suresh Kumar. From the place of occurrence, she seized the iron rod (M.O.1) and the wooden log (M.O.2), blood stained shirt (M.O.3) and blood stained towel (M.O.4) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P3). Then, on 31.12.2013 at about 15.00 hours, she arrested A2 and later, on 08.01.2014, she arrested A1. Then, she sent the accused to the Court for remanding them to judicial custody.

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

10. After 15 days of treatment, the father of P.W.1 died in the hospital on 14.01.2014 at 10.00 a.m. On receipt of death intimation from the hospital, P.W.14 (Sub-Inspector of Police) altered the case into one under Sections 294(b) and 302 IPC vide Alteration Report (Ex.P10) and handed over the case file to P.W.12 (Inspector of Police (i/c)).

11. P.W.12 (Inspector of Police (i/c)) went to the hospital and conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and prepared Inquest Report (Ex.P7). Then, he sent the body for postmortem through Grade-II Police Constable (P.W.13). Later, he handed over the case file to P.W.15 (Inspector of Police).

12. P.W.8 (Medical Officer attached to Madras Medical College, Chennai) conducted autopsy over the body of the deceased and noted the following injuries : “Injuries :

1. Healing lacerated wound 7 cms in length at the left frontal scalp.

2. A curvilinear sutured surgical (craniotomy) wound 15 cms in length with 21 intact sutures at the left fronto parieto temporal scalp.

3. Healing dark brown abrasion 2 x 1 cms at the top of right shoulder.

4. Surgically incised wound (sutured – tracheostomy) 1.5 x 1 cm x

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

cavity deep at the lower aspect of front of neck. On dissection of Head : Subscalplar contusion 18 x 10 cms at the left fronto parieto temporal region. A bony defect of 10 x 7 cms with margins of 4 burr holes and dural defect of 10 x 6 cms present at the left parieto temporal region with gelfoam on the surface of cerebrum. A vertical, linear fissured fracture. 8 cms in length present in the left fronto parietal bone. Brain – oedematous. Diffuse, thin subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage on the surface and base of cerebral hemisphere. Cut section : 2 x 1.5 x 1 cm haematoma present at the left parietal lobe of brain base an oblique, linear fissured fractured 4 cms in length in the left side of anterior cranial fossa. On dissection of neck : All neck structures were normal. Hyoid bone – intact. On dissection of thorax : Thoracic cavity contained 300 ml of straw coloured fluid. Heart – normal in size. Chambers contained clotted blood. Valves, coronaries and guat vessels – patent, normal. Lungs – normal in size. Cut section – white frothy fluid oozing out from cut-surface. On dissection of abdomen : Peritoneal cavity contained 200 ml of straw coloured fluid. Stomach contained 150 ml of yellow coloured fluid with no specific odour. Mucosa – congested. Liver, spleen and kidneys- normal in size. Cut section – congested. Small intestine contained 30 ml of yellow coloured fluid with no specific smell. Bladder – empty. Pelvis and spinal column – intact. Viscera preserved and sent for chemical analysis.” Accordingly, P.W.8 has issued Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P4). P.W.8 has stated in her evidence that, after receipt of Viscera Report (Ex.P6), she has

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injuries.

13. P.W.15 (Inspector of Police), in continuation of the investigation, examined all the witnesses and recorded their statements and after collecting various reports including Biology Reports (Exs.P11 and P12) and Serology Reports (Exs.P13 and P14), he filed a final report for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302, 307, 506(ii) r/w. 34 IPC as against the accused A1 and A2, in P.R.C.No.12 of 2015 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Arakkonam.

14. On appearance of the accused, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. were complied with and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.202 of 2015 and was made over to the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore @ Ranipet, for trial.

15. The trial Court framed the charges under Sections 294(b), 302, 307 r/w. 34 and 506(ii) r/w. 34 IPC as against A1; and Sections 294(b), 302 r/w. 34, 307 and 506(ii) IPC as against A2. When questioned, the accused pleaded “not guilty”.

16. To prove the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.W.1 to P.W.15, marked Exs.P1 to P14 and produced M.O.1 to M.O.4.

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

17. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused and when the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied the same. On the side of the defence, no one was examined nor was any document marked.

18. During the pendency of the trial, A2 died and therefore, the charges against him abated.

19. The trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence and materials on record, by its judgment dated 26.03.2021, acquitted A1 of the offences under Sections 294(b), 307 r/w. 34 and 506(ii) r/w. 34 IPC, however, convicted him (A1) of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

20. Challenging the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court as against A1, A1 has filed the above Criminal Appeal.

21. Learned counsel for the appellant/A1 would submit that the accused had no intention to cause the death of the deceased. The entire occurrence took place in a sudden quarrel in the heat of passion. The accused had caused only a

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

single injury and had not taken any undue advantage nor acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Hence, he would submit that the act of the appellant would fall within Exception (4) to Section 300 IPC. He would further submit that the injured died only on 14.01.2024 in the hospital after nearly two weeks. The nature of treatment given to the deceased has not been placed before the Court by the prosecution. The surgical treatment undergone by the deceased has also not been established by the prosecution. Therefore, the learned counsel would pray that the punishment imposed by the trial Court may be modified in the light of Exception (4) to Section 300 IPC.

22. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that there is no dispute with regard to the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased immediately prior to the occurrence.

23. In the light of the above submissions, the only point that arises for consideration in this Appeal is whether the act of the appellant would fall within any of the exceptions under Section 300 IPC.

24. We have perused the entire materials available on record.

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

25. Exception (4) to Section 300 IPC reads as follows : “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”.

26. The requirements of this exception are :

i. without premeditation in a sudden fight

ii. in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel

iii. the offender has not taken undue advantage; and

iv. the offender has not acted in a cruel or unusual manner When these requirements are satisfied, culpable homicide would not be murder.

27. In the above backdrop, when the evidence of the witnesses is carefully perused, P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 and P.W.7, in one voice, have stated that the accused A1 and A2 had come to question P.W.2 as to why he was speaking with one Uma Lenin with whom the accused did not have a good relationship. During the course of such altercation, when the father of P.W.1 and P.W.2 came to intervene, A1 caused an injury on his head with an iron rod and when P.W.2 tried to prevent, A2 attacked P.W.2 with a wooden log.

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

28. Therefore, from the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.6 and P.W.7, it is clear that A1, during the course of the altercation, suddenly hit the deceased with an iron rod and ran away from the place of occurrence. In the present case, it is very clear that there was a quarrel between the accused and the witnesses and the deceased immediately prior to the occurrence and the appellant, in a sudden heat of passion upon such quarrel, hit the deceased with an iron rod, but only once. The appellant did not act in an unusual or cruel manner and did not take any undue advantage nor can it be said that he had any premeditation for causing death in this case. Rather, the accused immediately ran away from the place of occurrence. Considering the facts obtaining in the present case, we are of the view that the act of the appellant would certainly fall within Exception (4) to Section 300 IPC, for which, he is liable to be convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, but not under Section 302 IPC.

29. Now, the question is whether the act of the appellant will fall within Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 IPC. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Anbazhagan v. The State represented by the Inspector of Police reported in 2023 (10) SCALE 173, after referring various judgments, has held as follows : “(3) To put it in other words, if the act of an accused person falls within the first two clauses of cases of culpable homicide as described in Section 299 of the IPC it is punishable under the first

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

part of Section 304. If, however, it falls within the third clause, it is punishable under the second part of Section 304. In effect, therefore, the first part of this section would apply when there is ‘guilty intention,’ whereas the second part would apply when there is no such intention, but there is ‘guilty knowledge’. …

(12) In determining the question, whether an accused had guilty intention or guilty knowledge in a case where only a single injury is inflicted by him and that injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the fact that the act is done without premeditation in a sudden fight or quarrel, or that the circumstances justify that the injury was accidental or unintentional, or that he only intended a simple injury, would lead to the inference of guilty knowledge, and the offence would be one under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.” (emphasis supplied)

30. In the case on hand, though there was no serious motive between the parties, from the nature of the injury caused on the head and the weapon (iron rod) used by A1, the “guilty intention” as well as “guilty knowledge” of the appellant can easily be gathered. Therefore, we find that the appellant is liable to convicted under Section 304(i) IPC.

31. Further, it is relevant to note that, though the deceased died of the head injury caused by the appellant, the fact remains that the injured died in the hospital after nearly two weeks and as per Ex.P4 (Postmortem Certificate), there

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

were also surgical injuries on the head. However, the prosecution has not produced any document to establish the nature of treatment given to the deceased or the nature of surgery undergone by the deceased.

32. The appellant/A1 is in bail and today, the appellant/A1 is also present before this Court along with his three children of tender age and pleads for leniency. Considering the overall circumstances and taking note of the fact that the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner and had caused only a single injury on the head, coupled with the fact that the deceased died in the hospital only after nearly two weeks and the nature of treatment given to the deceased not being placed on record by the prosecution, a sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice.

33. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and the conviction of the appellant/A1 under Section 302 IPC is modified to one under Section 304(i) IPC and the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on the appellant/A1 by the trial Court is reduced to five years rigorous imprisonment. Rest of the judgment of the trial Court stands confirmed.

34. In view of the above, the appellant/A1 is directed to surrender before the trial Court viz., the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore @ Ranipet, within ten days from today. On such surrender, the trial Court shall

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

commit him to prison to undergo the modified sentence imposed by this Court. If the appellant/A1 fails to surrender before the trial Court within the specified period, the trial Court shall secure the appellant/A1 and commit him to prison to undergo the modified sentence imposed on him. The period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant/A1 shall be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Bail bond, if any, executed by the appellant/A1, shall stand cancelled. Registry is directed to return the records to the trial Court forthwith. (N.S.K.,J.) (K.R.S.,J.) 30-09-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No MKN To

1. The II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet.

2. The Inspector of Police, Thakkolam Police Station, Arakkonam Taluk, Ranipet District.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4. The Section Officer, Criminal Section, High Court, Madras.

CRL A No. 208 of 2021

N.SATHISH KUMAR J. AND K.RAJASEKAR J. MKN CRL A No. 208 of 2021 30-09-2026