Dismissed

Senthilkumar, Age 34 Yrs, v. State Rep.by Inspector of

Madras HC24 Apr 2017CRL A/200/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant against conviction and sentence for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The Court upheld the trial court’s reasoning regarding the dying declaration and evidence of kerosene smell, finding the conviction well-founded.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Appeal No. 200 of 2014 was dismissed; the conviction and sentence under Section 304 Part I IPC were upheld.

Senthilkumar, Age 34 Yrs, Vs State Rep.by… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.04.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.T. SELVAM

¶5

Crl.A.No.200 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014

¶6

Senthilkumar
S/o.Raghavan .. Appellant
Vs.
State represented by
Inspector of Police,
B-13, Pothanur Police Station,
Coimbatore.
Crime No.666 of 2011 .. Respondent
Criminal Appeal filed u/s.374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure against the judgment of learned I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, passed in S.C.No.304 of 2011 on
28.08.2012.
For Appellant : Mr.I.Abrar Md. Abdullah
For Respondent : Mr.M.Mohammed Riyaz
Government Advocate [Crl.side]
JUDGMENT

¶7

This appeal arises against the judgment of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, passed in S.C.No.304 of 2011 on 28.08.2012.

¶8

The case of the prosecution is that on 24.04.2011 at about 10.30 p.m., appellant/husband of the deceased quarreled with the deceased, poured kerosene and set her on fire, owing to which the deceased, despite treatment, died on 03.05.2011 at about 01.40 p.m. A case was registered in Crime No.666 of 2011 on the file of respondent. Upon completion of investigation and filing of final report informing commission of offence u/s.302 IPC, the case was taken on file in S.C.No.304 of 2011 on the file of learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. On appreciation of materials before it, trial Court,

¶9

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶10

under judgment dated 28.08.2012, convicted the appellant/accused for offence u/s.304 Part I IPC and sentenced to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.20,000/- i/d 6 months R.I. There against, the present appeal has been filed.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned

¶12

Government Advocate [Crl.side].

¶13

In convicting the appellant/accused, trial Court has

¶14

found as follows:

¶15

(i)The contention of appellant/accused that the delay in intimating the Magistrate towards recording of dying declaration was unexplained has been negated by trial Court on the reasoning that the mistake of the respondent police in not intimating the Magistrate immediately cannot be put against the victim.

¶16

(ii) The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded on the day after the occurrence by PW-10 and till such time, nobody had seen the deceased at hospital and hence, the contention that the deceased was tutored was unacceptable. Further, in her dying declaration, the deceased has stated that there was a quarrel between her and the accused the previous night and the same was corroborated by PW-1, her son and PW-2, her neighbour. Ex.P8, Accident Register, informs 'burns by known person'. Though it did not inform the name of the accused, it clearly states that the deceased did not attempt suicide.

¶17

(iii)It was the evidence of PW-1 that before the occurrence, accused made some disparaging remarks about the conduct of the deceased and poured kerosene on her. Though PW-1 had not actually seen the accused setting the deceased on fire, it could be presumed that accused was the person, who set her on fire.

¶18

(iv)Though the accused, in Section 313 questioning, has gone to the extent of stating that there was no kerosene in his house on the occurrence day, PW-13, Doctor, who conducted postmortem, has reported that the deceased's hair smelt of kerosene even after 10 days of occurrence.

¶19

(v)Taking into account the evidence of PW-13, Doctor, that the deceased had suffered septicimia, the trial Court held that the accused was guilty of offence u/s.304 Part I IPC and accordingly, sentenced him to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.20,000/- i/d 6 months R.I.

¶20

This Court finds that a well-reasoned approach has been adopted by trial Court in convicting the accused for offence u/s.304 Part I IPC and in sentencing him to 10 years R.I. and fine of Rs.20,000/- i/d 6 months R.I.

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶22

The Criminal Appeal shall stand dismissed. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS II)

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar
gm
To
1. The I Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Coimbatore.
2. The Judicial Magistrate No VII,
Coimbatore.
-do- Thro the Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Coimbatore.
3. The Inspector Of Police,
B-13, Pothanur Police Station,
Coimbatore.
4. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Coimbatore.
Crl.A.No.200 of 2014
PPA(CO)
CS/30/06/17

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Senthilkumar, Age 34 Yrs, v. State Rep.by Inspector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Senthilkumar, Age 34 Yrs, v. State Rep.by Inspector of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Barathvaj, A/54 Yrs, Vs the State Rep by

SENTHILKUMAR,33 Yrs, Vs the Superintendent of Police

K.Alamelu, F/a 65 Yrs, Vs the Commissioner of Police

A.Dasarathan Vs the Inspector of Police

S.Balasubramanian Vs The commissioner of Police

Martin Charles Vs the State Rep by