Partly allowed

Mahadevan, S/O.Ayyanar v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

Madras HC8 Oct 2021CRL A/442/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court partly allowed criminal appeal regarding convictions for culpable homicide and minor assaults. Court confirmed conviction under Section 304(ii) IPC but reduced sentence from seven to four years due to sudden fight. Sentences for other appellants were modified to fines. Case involved land dispute.

What did the court decide?

Sentence for A1 reduced to four years; sentences for A2 and A4 modified to fines of Rs. 3,000 and Rs. 2,000 respectively.

Mahadevan, S/O.Ayyanar Vs State of Tamilnadu… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

BAIL SLIP

¶2

Mahadevan S/O, Ayyanar Accused No.1 in SC No.107 of 2011
on the file of 1st Additional District and sessions Judge,
Tindivanam was enlarged a bail in MP.No.3 of 2014 in Crl
A.No.442 of 2014 dated 23.07.2015.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

RESERVED ON : 02.08.2021
 PRONOUNCED ON : 08.10.2021

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN

¶7

Crl.A.No.442 of 2014

¶8

1.Mahadevan
2.Ayyanar
3.Elumalai ... Appellant/Accused 1,2&4

¶9

Vs.

¶10

The State of Tamilnadu
represented by Inspector of Police
Aragandanallur Police Station Crime No.126 of 2010
Villupuram District. ... Respondent/Complainant

¶11

Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of
Cr.P.C., against the order of conviction passed by the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam in S.C.No.107
of 2011, dated 08.08.2011 convicting the first appellant under
Section 304(ii) of IPC and imposed a sentence of seven years
rigorous imprisonment, second appellant for offence under
Section 324 of IPC and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment
of three months and the third appellant under Section 323 of IPC
and imposed the sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment.

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

(The case has been heard through Video Conference)

¶14

The convicted accused viz., A1, A2 & A4 are the
appellants herein.

¶15

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

¶16

2.This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order
of conviction passed in S.C.No.107 of 2011, by the learned I
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, dated
08.08.2014, wherein, the learned Judge has convicted A1 for the
offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC and imposed sentence to
undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment; convicted A2 for the
offence under Section 324 of IPC and imposed sentence to undergo
three months rigorous imprisonment; convicted A4 for the offence
under Section 323 of IPC and imposed sentence to undergo one
month rigorous imprisonment.

¶17

3(a).The case of the prosecution is that Inspector of
Police, Aragandanallur Police Station has laid a final report
alleging that the deceased Kasinathan, his family members,
accused 1 to 5 are the residents of Ottampatu village. The
father of the deceased viz., VellayaKounder, A3/Manickam and one
Annamalai are brothers. All the three had orally partitioned
the site. A3 and his son viz., A2 were enjoying the entire site
by using it as a cattle shed and by putting garbage. Whileso,
due to misunderstanding among brothers, the deceased asked A2 &
A3 to remove the garbage from the site and he wanted to survey
the land and lay survey stones for the respective shares.

¶18

3(b).On 04.04.2010 the deceased Kasinathan laid a fence
for his share of property and A1 to A3 removed the fence, during
the evening. At about 8.00 p.m., the deceased returned home and
saw the fence are removed and hence, he scolded A3 and his
family members for removal of fence.

¶19

3(c).A1 to A8 unlawful assembled with deadly weapons and
in pursuance of the common object A1 scolded the deceased in
filthy language and assaulted him on his head with wooden
pestle, A5 assaulted him on his left hip with iron rod, A6
assaulted him with wooden log on his chest and back, A7
assaulted him with wooden log on his chest and thereby caused
injuries to him.

¶20

4.On seeing the witnesses viz., PW1/Babu, PW2/Sasikala
and PW3/Boopathy, who came for rescue, A2 assaulted PW1 with
cycle chain on his head, A3 assaulted PW1 with wooden long on
his right hand and caused simple injury; A4 assaulted PW2 with
wooden log and had caused injury on her right shoulder. A8
pulled the tuft of PW3 and assaulted her with hands and caused
simple injury.

¶21

5.Hence, A1 alleged to have committed the offence under
Sections 148, 294(b) and 302 of IPC; A2 alleged to have
committed offence under Sections 148, 324 & 302 of IPC read with
Section 149 of IPC; A3 & A4 alleged to have committed offence
under Sections 148, 323 & 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of

¶22

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

¶23

IPC; A5 alleged to have committed offence under Section 148, 324
& 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC; A6 & A7 alleged to
have committed offence under Sections 148, 323 & 302 read with
Section 149 of IPC; A8 alleged to have committed offence under
Sections 147, 341, 323 & 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

¶24

6.Thereafter, the case was taken up on file as S.C.No.107
of 2011, before the learned I Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Tindivanam. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge
has found A1 guilty for the offence under Sections 304(ii) of
IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous
imprisonment; found A2 guilty for the offence under Section 325
of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous
imprisonment; found A4 guilty for the offence under Section 323
of IPC and sentenced him to undergo one month rigorous
imprisonment; all the other accused were acquitted from the
respective charges. Aggrieved against the said conviction and
sentence, A1, A2 & A4 have preferred the present Criminal Appeal
before this Court.

¶25

7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the
learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) appearing for the
respondent.

¶26

8.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased
Kasinathan, A3 and one Arunachalam are brothers and they have a
common property behind the house of the deceased. A3 along with
his family viz., A1 & A2 were using the said land to dump cow-
dung. On request of the deceased the said area was cleaned.
The deceased Kasinathan said to have fenced the entire area.
Whileso, on 04.04.2010 and the said fence was removed by A1 to
A3. On account of this, there was a quarrel at 8.00 p.m., A1 had
reportedly beat the deceased on his head with wooden pestle and
other accused purportedly beat the deceased as well as the
witness with cycle chain, wooden log and iron rod.

¶27

9.The body of the deceased was in the custody of
PW12/Veeran, on information, PW10/Dr.Kumarselvam had conducted
post-mortem on the body of the deceased and issued post-mortem
certificate, it was marked as Ex.P14, it also corroborates that
deceased had suffered injury on his head, his skull has been
fractured and the brain has also been injured and the death has
occurred only due to the injury caused on his head. Hence, the
overt act of A1, has caused the fracture of skull and injury in
the brain of the deceased. The final opinion Ex.P15, issued
based upon the post-mortem certificate/Ex.P14, in which, it is
stated that the deceased has died due to the injury caused to
the brain.

¶28

10.Thus, this Court from the medical evidence of
PW10/Kumarselvam and documentary evidence of Ex.P14/post-mortem

¶29

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

¶30

certificate, comes to the conclusion that the deceased died due
to homicidal violence.

¶31

11.Accordingly to the prosecution, the motive for the
crime is that the land dispute. From the cross-examination of
PW1 to PW4 and suggestive case projected, the Trial Court has
come to the conclusion that both the parties viz., deceased as
well as accused both are aggrieved by the act of each other and
hence, motive said to have been proved by the prosecution.

¶32

12.In support of the charge under Section 302 of IPC,
prosecution examined PW1 to PW15. Exs.P1 to P21 were marked and
MO1 to MO10 were also marked. PW1 is the son of the deceased
Kasinathan; PW8/Sudha is the Doctor, who has given treatment to
PW2 & PW3; whereas PW10/Dr.Kumarselvam has conducted post-
mortem; while PW12, PW13 and PW15 are the police witness,
deposed regarding discharge of their official duty and receipt
of Ex.P1/complaint and collection of materials and arrest of the
accused and filing of final report of the investigation.

¶33

13.On close scanning and scrutinizing the evidence of
prosecution witness, this Court finds that PW1/Babu is the son
of deceased Kasinathan. The said Kasinathan's father Vellaya
Kounder, A3/Manickam and one Annamalai are brothers. All the
accused and witnesses belong to Ottampattu village. The deceased
Kasinathan and his family members were having a vacant site
behind his house. A3 and his family members were enjoying the
property by putting garbage and by using it as a cattle shed.
Just prior to the occurrence PW1's father asked A3 to remove
garbage from the site. After removal of garbage, on 04.04.2021,
PW1's grand father laid fence around his site. A1 to A3 came
there and removed the fence during the day time. At about
8.00p.m. P.W.1's father Kasinathan returned home and saw that
the fence has been removed. He immediately asked the accused 1
to 3 as to why he had removed the fence. Whileso, A1 to A7 came
with weapons and A1 assaulted deceased Kasinathan with wooden
pestle on his head and when PW1/Babu/Complainant went for the
rescue, A1/Ayyanar assaulted him with cycle chain on his head,
A3 assaulted him with wooden log on his right hand, A4 assaulted
PW2/Sasikala with wooden log on her right shoulder, A5 assaulted
the deceased with iron rod on the chest, A6 & A7 assaulted the
deceased with wooden log on his chest and back, A8 assaulted PW3
with hands by pulling her tuft. While PW1 to PW3 sustained
simple injuries in the occurrence and Kasinathan succumbed to
the injuries.

¶34

14.On a combined reading of the chief and cross-
examination of PW1/defacto complainant, it is seen that there is
a dispute between the family of the deceased and the accused
regarding the usage of 5 cents of land. PW1 claims that the said
5 cents of land belong to his father but in the confession

¶35

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

¶36

statement given by A1 it is stated that there was a joint family
vacant site behind the house of the deceased. There was a
dispute in usage of the said vacant site. A1 to A3 removed
garbage put by them and were waiting to survey the land. In the
mean time the deceased has laid the fence, fixing his share in
the property and that fence has been removed by the accused.

¶37

15.Thus, this Court finds that PW1 has stated that A1
assaulted his father viz, the deceased Kasinathan with wooden
pestle on his head. Ex.P1/complaint also corroborates his
evidence. The evidence of PW2/Sasikala, PW3/Boopathy,
PW4/Subramanian and PW5/Elimalai, also corroborates the evidence
of PW1 regarding such injury caused to the deceased by A1 with
wooden pestle on his head.

¶38

16.In this connection PW10-Kumarselvam has conducted
post-mortem on the body of deceased. Ex.P14/post-mortem
certificate, issued by PW10/Doctor, also confirms that A1 has
caused injury on the deceased head, his skull has been fractured
and the brain has also been injured and the death has occurred
only due to the injury caused on his head. Hence, due to the
overt act of A1, has caused the fracture of skull and injury in
the brain of the deceased. He has also given the final opinion
under Ex.P15 and Ex.P14/post mortem certificate, is to the
effect that the deceased had died due to the injury caused to
the brain.

¶39

17.The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would

¶40

contend that

¶41

(i)the rough sketch of allotted property and the “X”
marked portion as a scene of occurrence is the scene of the
crime which is in front of the house of the deceased/Kasinathan.
(ii)the scene of the crime is clearly projected by the
prosecution has been duly corroborated by PW1 to PW5.

¶42

(iii)As per the the evidence of PW1 to PW5 with regard to
the use of the weapon by A1, A2 and A4 on the body of the
deceased, was duly corroborated by the evidence of PW1, who also
sustained injury in the very same occurrence. Furthermore, in
the said attack as spoken to by PW2 to PW5 was duly corroborated
by Medical Evidence of the Doctor as could be seen from
Ex.P14/post mortum certificate and Ex.P15/final opinion issued
by G.H.Thirukoilur to deceased Kasinathan.

¶43

18.Thus, this Court finds that the prosecution has let in
positive evidence as to the fact that A1 assaulted on the head
of the deceased and thereby, the deceased has sustained injury
on his head and his skull has been fractured and the brain has
also been injured, which resulted in death of Kasinathan and
thus, this Court finds that the findings rendered by the Trial
Court that due to the overt act of A1, which resulted in the
death of the deceased Kasinathan and the presence of PW1 to PW3

¶44

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

¶45

can not doubted and such a finding rendered by the learned
Sessions Judge does not suffer from any irregularity or
illegality, warranting interference.

¶46

19.The learned Sessions Judge has also taken note of the
answer elicited in the cross examination, had came to the
conclusion that there is a material contradiction with regard to
the alleged overt act of A5 & A6 and accordingly, acquitted A5 &
A6 and this Court finds that in view of the specific evidence of
PW1, which is duly corroborated by the evidence of PW2/Sasikala,
PW3/Boopathy, PW4/Subramanian, and also the medical evidence of
PW10/Kumarselvam, coupled with Ex.P14/post-mortem certificate,
the finding rendered by the Sessions Court that due to the blow
given on the head of the deceased by A1, the deceased/Kasinathan
had sustained injury on his head and his skull has been
fractured and the brain has also been injured, resulted in death
is just and proper. The such finding is hereby confirmed.

¶47

20.The motive for the crime is that of land dispute.

¶48

21.It is seen from the cross examination of PW1 to PW4
that the occurrence has commenced due to the land dispute. One
party claims the land as joint family property while the other,
who are none other than two of his maternal grand father, A1 to
A3 are share holders. It is the specific claim that a “specific
portion” belong to them. When the parties were waiting for the
measuring land, the father of PW1 has put up the fence, so it
was removed by the accused. And therefore, the removal of the
fencing by the accused could not amount to an unfair act and
thus, both the parties have their own claim as against the land
in dispute.

¶49

22.It is just ten minutes before the occurrence, there
was a wordy quarrel between, the deceased and A1 to A3, as
admitted during the cross examination of PW1, PW3 coupled with
the investigation officer PW18. Such a quarrel came to an end
and 10 minutes thereafter only the accused seems to have come
out of the house and hence, I find that A1 had no such intention
to cause a grave injury. But, at the same time the accused knows
that the wooden pestle if assaulted on the head would cause such
a injury that it would be imminently dangerous and in all
probability it would cause death. So the offender knows that it
is imminently dangerous in using a weapon like wooden pestle,
and if assaulted on the head in all probability it would cause
the death. Hence the act of the accused would be covered under
Section 300 fourthly.

¶50

23.Thus, this Court finds that the prior to the
occurrence, there was a wordy quarrel for 10 minutes regarding
the land dispute and finally it has resulted in a sudden fight
and in a heat of passion and upon a sudden quarrel, A1 has

¶51

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

¶52

caused such injury on head of deceased. Further it would be
revealed from the conduct of A1 that there is no premeditation.
If he had premeditation to cause the death of the deceased he
would not have quarrelled for 10 minutes. As soon as he heard
the sound of the deceased, first accused would have attacked
him. So considering the relationship of the accused and the
deceased, the land dispute, the wordy quarrel which went on for
10 minutes, the weapon used and the single blow that he has
given on the head of the deceased all these acts go to show that
the act of A1 would be covered under 300 clause 4 of IPC and
under exception of 4 of Section 300 of IPC. Accordingly, the
Trial Court has convicted A1 under Section 304(ii) of IPC.

¶53

24(a).The learned counsel for the appellant would contend
that there is a material contradiction. This Court has
considered such contention by the learned counsel for the
appellant, however considering the clear and cogent evidence of
PW1 & PW2 coupled with the medical evidence of PW10, this Court
finds that the act of the accused in attacking the deceased with
wooden pestle on the fore head, which has been shown as cause of
injury, I find that same is sufficient enough to hold him guilty
for the offence under Section 304(ii) IPC.

¶54

24(b).Accordingly the finding rendered by the learned
Sessions Judge that A1 is found guilty for the offence under
Section 304(ii) of IPC is hereby confirmed.

¶55

25.As to the injury caused to PW1 based upon the version
of PW1, PW2 & PW3 regarding the overt act of A2, PW8/Dr.Sudha,
who had examined PW1/Babu and had issued Ex.P8, in which she
found injury on the head, however, the overt act of A3 was
negatived by the learned Sessions Judge itself.

¶56

26.In respect of injury caused to PW2 as per the
prosecution she was assaulted by A4 with wooden lag on her right
shoulder, the evidence of PW2 is duly corroborated by PW1,
doctor evidence also duly corroborated as per Ex.P13. Therefore,
the Trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that A4 has
caused simple injury to PW2 with wooden log on his right
shoulder accordingly convicted for the offence under Section 323
IPC.

¶57

27.Taking into consideration the plea of the quantum of
sentence, I find that the accused had knowledge but however due
to the sudden quarrel on the spot the act was committed by A1 on
the head of the deceased. Accordingly 7 years rigorous
imprisonment is reduced to four years and A2 is found guilty of
for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, however, his sentence
is modified to Rs.3,000/- fine alone so also A4 accused who has
found guilty of 323 of IPC and convicted under same section
however, the sentence is modified into Rs.2,000/- fine.

¶58

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

¶59

28.In the result

¶60

(i) this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed;

¶61

(ii) Sentence imposed on A1 for the offence under Section
304(ii) of IPC is reduced to four years rigorous imprisonment
from seven imprisonment;

¶62

(iii) Sentence imposed on A2 for the offence under
Section 324 of IPC is modified only to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-
alone.

¶63

(iv) Sentence imposed on A4 for the offence under Section
323 of IPC is modified only to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- alone.

¶64

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar

¶65

// True Copy //

¶66

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶67

dua

¶68

To:

¶69

1.The I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam.

¶70

2.The Inspector of Police

¶71

 Aragandanallur Police Station,
 Villupuram District.

¶72

3.Public Prosecutor,

¶73

 High Court, Madras.

¶74

4.The Superintendent,
 Central Prison, Cuddalure.

¶75

+1CC to M/s.B.Nambiselvan, Advocate, SR.No. 53482

¶76

Crl.A.No.442 of 2014

¶77

SS(CO)

¶78

B.VC (01/11/2021)

¶79

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

Mahadevan, S/O.Ayyanar v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahadevan, S/O.Ayyanar v. State of Tamilnadu, Rep.by

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

Ravi Vs State Rep. by

A.S.Ramasamy, M/a 63 Yrs, Vs R.K.Selvam, Now Working at as

Anandan, Aged 55 Years, Vs Thangamani, Aged 57 Years

Krishnakumar Vs Boopalan

Moorthy Vs State Rep. by

Revathy Vs K.Sita Devi Jain