Arivanantham Vs State Rep by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

Arivanantham Vs State Rep by — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Madras HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Crl.A.No.546 of 2021 partly allowed: conviction of A1 (Arivanantham) modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304(i) IPC, sentence reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment, and the rest of the trial court judgment qua A1 confirmed. Crl.A.No.516 of 2021 allowed: judgment of conviction and sentence qua A2 (Jayasudha) set aside and she is acquitted of all charges; fine amount, if any, paid by her to be refunded and her bail bond(s) discharged.

Issue for consideration

Whether the conviction of Accused No.1 under Section 302 IPC deserved to be modified to Section 304 Part I IPC, the fatal injury being a single stab inflicted in a drunken brawl during a sudden quarrel between P.W.1 and Accused No.2, without previous enmity or intention to cause murder. +2 more

Court's answer

A single stab blow caused in a drunken brawl erupting out of a sudden quarrel between third parties, with no previous motive or enmity, no intention to cause murder, the deceased remaining conscious and dying six days later in hospital, falls under Section 304(i) IPC and not under Section 300 IPC.

Ratio / Principle

On the ocular and medical evidence, P.W.1, the deceased and Accused No.1 were all under the influence of alcohol at the time of occurrence, and the postmortem report detected alcohol in the viscera of the deceased; the entire occurrence took place in a drunken brawl.

Key takeaways

Even treating the deceased's hospital complaint (Ex.P1) as a dying declaration, it clearly showed that Accused No.1 alone caused the injury to the deceased.ratio¶145
Accused No.2 came to be implicated only later, on the basis of agitation by the public and one political party before the Government Hospital, as admitted by the Investigating Officer P.W.17 in cross-examination; the eyewitnesses attributed no overt act to her, rendering her conviction under Section 307 r/w 109 IPC unsustainable.ratio¶149

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (N. Sathish Kumar and M. Jothiraman, JJ.), common judgment dated 17.11.2025 in Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021, arising out of S.C.No.7 of 2019 (Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur) and Crime No.14/2018 of Nannilam Police Station. On 14.01.2018 at about 9.00 p.m., a wordy quarrel over stocking of sand broke out between Accused No.2 and P.W.1; the deceased Rajeshkannan, unconnected to the quarrel, stepped in to pacify them, whereupon Accused No.1 stabbed him once in the abdomen with an iron knife; the injured died in hospital six days later (20.01.2018). Treating the deceased's hospital complaint (Ex.P1) as a dying declaration attributing the stab to A1 alone, the Court held that the occurrence was a drunken brawl — ocular and medical evidence showed P.W.1, the deceased and A1 were intoxicated, alcohol was detected in the viscera, there was no previous motive or enmity, only a single blow was dealt, and the deceased survived six days — so there was no intention to cause murder; A1's conviction was therefore modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304(i) IPC with sentence reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment, the rest of the trial judgment qua A1 standing confirmed, and the appeal partly allowed. As regards A2 (Jayasudha), convicted under Section 307 r/w 109 IPC for alleged instigation, the Court found that the eyewitnesses attributed no overt act to her and that the Investigating Officer admitted in cross-examination she was included as accused amid agitation by the public and one political party before the Government Hospital; her conviction and sentence were set aside and she was acquitted of all charges, with refund of any fine paid and discharge of bail bonds. No precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 17.11.2025

Coram:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR and

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

Arivanantham

...Appellant in Crl.A.No.546 of 2021

Jayasudha

...Appellant in Crl.A.No.516 of 2021

Versus

State Rep. by The Inspector of Police, Nannilam Police Station, (Crime No.14/2018) Thiruvarur District.

...Respondent in both Crl.As

Prayer in Crl.A.No.546 of 2021:

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the conviction and sentence imposed upon Appellant by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in S.C.No.7 of 2019 dated 21.10.2021 for the offences under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced to

1/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021 undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC sentenced to life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, sentenced to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment and the period of remand already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off in the period of sentence under Section 428 of Cr.P.C and the sentence to run concurrently.

Prayer in Crl.A.No.516 of 2021:

This Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C against the conviction and sentence imposed upon Appellant by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur in S.C.No.7 of 2019 dated 21.10.2021 for the offences under Section 307 r/w. 109 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, sentenced to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment and the period of remand already undergone by the appellant is ordered to be set off in the period of sentence under Section 428 of Cr.P.C.

For Appellant in Crl.A.No.546 of 2021 : Mr.M.Govindaraju For Appellant in Crl.A.No.516 of 2021 : Mr.Swamisubramanian For Respondent in both Crl.As : Mr.A.Damodaran, Addl. Public Prosecutor Assisted by Ms.M.Arifa Thasneem

2/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal No.546 of 2021 has been preferred by the Appellant/Accused No.1 challenging the Judgment dated 21.10.2021 in S.C.No.7 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur convicting him under Sections 307 & 302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo 7 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment for the offences under Section 307 of IPC and also, sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.

The Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2021 has been preferred by the

Appellant/Accused No.2 challenging the Judgment dated 21.10.2021 in S.C.No.7 of 2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur convicting him under Sections 307 r/w. 109 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo 4 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment.

3/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

Since these Criminal Appeals have arisen out of a same judgment, the these Criminal Appeals are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

Accused No.1 (Appellant in Crl.A.No.546 of 2021), Accused No.2 (Appellant in Crl.A.No.516 of 2021) and deceased Rajeshkannan are close relatives and they are residents of Selvapuram Village, Nannilam Taluk, Thiruvarur District. On 14.01.2018, at about 9.00 p.m., there was a wordy quarrel between Accused No.2 and P.W.1 (Maheswaran) with regard to stocking the sand in front of the house of P.W.11 (Sekar). One Mr.Rajeshkannan (deceased) who was residing near that place came there to

pacify both Accused No.2 and P.W.1 (Maheswaran). At that time, Accused No.1 came there with an iron knife and he was trying to assault P.W.1 (Maheswaran), but, P.W.1 (Maheswaran) had moved away and escaped from that deadly assault. At that time, Accused No.1 stabbed Rajeshkannan (deceased) in his stomach by using the said knife and caused fatal injury to Rajeshkannan (deceased), due to which, Rajeshkannan (deceased) had fell

4/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021 down and his intestine had collapsed. Therefore, immediately, Rajeshkannan (deceased) was taken to Thiruvarur Government Medical College Hospital for treatment. The said occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 (Maheswaran), P.W.2 (Marimuthu), P.W.3 (Murali), P.W.5 (Karunanithi), P.W.9 (Ramu) and P.W.10 (Anbuselvan).

On 14.01.2018, at around 10.00 p.m., Rajeshkannan (deceased) was admitted in Thiruvarur Government Medical College Hospital for treatment. P.W.13 (Dr.Gokulakrishnan, Assistant Lecturer in Thiruvarur Government Medical College Hospital) who was working in the Emergency Ward had examined Rajeshkannan (deceased). At that time, P.W.13 enquired Rajeshkannan (deceased) about the injury caused to him, to which, Rajeshkannan (deceased) replied that he was stabbed by a known person. Thereafter, P.W.13 recommended Rajeshkannan (deceased) for surgery. In the Accident Register (Ex.P8), P.W.13 had recorded that abdominal part was exposed and the injury was a stab injury.

On 15.01.2018, P.W.16 (Ms.Suganya, then Sub-Inspector of Police,

Nannilam Police Station) came to the Hospital where Rajeshkannan

5/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021 (deceased) was taking treatment and enquired him. On the said date, at around 2.30 a.m., Rajeshkannan (deceased) had given a Complaint Statement (Ex.P1) to P.W.16. Based on the Complaint Statement (Ex.P1) given by Rajeshkannan (deceased), P.W.16 registered a case in Crime No.14 of 2018 against Accused No.1 for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 307 of IPC.

Thereafter, P.W.17 (Mr.Azhagudurai, then Inspector of Police, Nannilam Police Station) went to the scene of crime on 15.01.2018 at about

7.00 a.m and prepared Observation Mahazar (Ex.P2) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P15) in the presence of P.W.4 (Kalaiyarasan) and P.W.5 (Karunanidhi) and also, seized M.O.1 (Blood stained Dhoti), M.O.2 (Blood stained Towel), M.O.3 (Blood stained Earth) and M.O.4 (Ordinary Earth) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P4).

On 15.01.2018, at about 3.00 p.m., P.W.17 had arrested Accused No.1 and recorded the Confession Statement of Accused No.1 (Ex.P16) in the presence of P.W.6 (Mohangandhi) and P.W.7 (Selvaraj). Based on the admitted portion of Confession Statement given by Accused No.1, P.W.17

6/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021 had seized M.O.5 (Blood stained Iron Knife) under Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P6) and sent the Accused No.1 to judicial custody.

Thereafter, on 20.01.2018, at about 9.00 a.m., P.W.17 received the information from Thiruvarur Medical College Hospital that Rajeshkannan (deceased) who was taking treatment as inpatient had died at 6.55 a.m, pursuant to which, P.W.17 altered the section of crime from Sections 294(b) & 307 IPC to Section 294(b) & 302 IPC under Alteration Report (Ex.P19). On the very same day, P.W.17 had conducted inquest on the body of deceased Rajeshkannan in front of Panchayatars and prepared the Inquest Report (Ex.P20). Then, P.W.17 sent the body of deceased Rajeshkannan for postmortem.

On 20.01.2018 at about 01.45 p.m., P.W.14 (Dr.Sivakumar, Assistant Lecturer, Thiruvarur Government Medical College Hospital) had started the postmortem on the body of deceased Rajeshkannan and concluded the same by 3.00 p.m. After Postmortem, P.W.14 had issued Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P9) and Final Opinion (Ex.P10). The Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P9) issued by P.W.14 is extracted hereunder:

7/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

“POSTMORTEM CERTIFICATE

PM No.25/2018

Dated: 20/01/2018

Crime No. & Police Station : 14/2018, u/s. 294(b), 302 IPC of Nannilam P.S. Date and Hrs. of receipt of requisition : 20/01/2018 at 01.45 P.M from Inspector of Nannilam P.S. Body brought & identified by : P.Visvanathan, H.C.No.709 of Nannilam P.s. Date and Hour of Autopsy : 20/01/2018 at 02:00 P.M. P.M. examination concluded at : 03:00 P.M. on 20/01/2018

SCHEDULE OF OBSERVATIONS A-GENERAL

Name : RAJESHKANNAN, S/o. BALU 2. Sex & Age : Male, 24 years 3. Length : 175 cm 4. Physique & Nutrition : Well built and moderately nourished 5. Identifying feature :

A black mole over front of lower part of right side of the chest.

A scar over front of right knee.

6. External Appearances

A male body wrapped in white and blue color bed sheet and another white color vesti with green color border. Hospital bandage present over front of abdomen in midline. Wound dressing mesh with colostomy bag and drainage tube present over colostomy wound in left side of the abdomen. Scalp hair 3 cm, moustache 1 cm and beard 1 cm; black color hair. Eyes and mouth partly opened.

Postmortem changes

Body kept in cold storage. Postmortem hypostasis present over back of the body. Rigor mortis is present in muscles of lower limbs only. No signs of decomposition.

Wounds: Ante Mortem: External:

A sutured stab wound of 6 cm, wedge shaped, obliquely placed over lower abdomen in midline with 2 black thread sutures intact in middle of wound. Wound is altered in middle by surgical incised wound. A track is established over the front of the abdomen entering the muscles of the abdomen and peritoneum passing forwards and downwards in to the peritoneal cavity.

Multiple abrasions of 5 to 10 x 0.1 to 0.2 cm over front of chest.

8/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

Wounds: Ante Mortem: Internal:

A sutured wound over entire circumference, with resection and end to end anastomosis of jejunum part of small intestine and over adjacent mesentry with sutures intact. On removal of the sutures the margins of wound are clear cut.

A sutured wound of 6 cm, over caecum part of large intestine with sutures intact. On removal of the sutures the margins of wound are clear cut.

Surgical wound:

A sutured incised wound of 21 cm, over front of abdomen in midline with 12 black thread sutures intact. On removal of the sutures the wound is cavity deep with clear cut margins.

Sutured penetrated (laprotomy) wound of 1 x 1 cm, cavity deep, circular shaped over front of lower part of right side of the abdomen with 1 black thread sutures intact. A track is established over the front of the abdomen entering the muscles of the abdomen and peritoneum passing forwards and downwards in to the peritoneal cavity.

Penetrated (ileostomy) wound of 3 x 3 cm, cavity deep, over front of lower part of left side of the abdomen, with cut end of ileum exposed outside with sutures intact with drainage tube and colostomy bag.

All the sutured, incised, penetrated or stab wounds sites contained blood clots. Abrasions are partly healed with black scab. All the above wounds are Ante Mortem in nature.

B – HEAD AND NECK

1.Scalp	:	Nil particular
2.Skull	:	Nil paarticular
3.Brain, meninges and
Cerebral vessels	:	Oedematous; C/S multiple petechial in the white mater.	haemorrhages
4.Mouth, Tongue and Pharynx	:	Nil particular
5.Neck, Larynx and Thyroid and other neck structures	: C	Nil particular – CHEST
1.Ribs, Chest wall & Diaphragm	:	Vide wounds
2.Mediastinum and Thymus	:	Nil particular

9/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

3.Oesophagus : Nil particular 4.Trachea and Bronchi : Nil particular 5.Pleural Cavities Right : No free fluid Left : No free fluid 6.Lungs Right : Oedematous; C/S congested Left : Oedematous; C/S congested 7.Heart and Pericardial Sac : Nil particular 8.Large blood vessels : Nil particular D – ABDOMEN 1.Abdominal Wall : Vide wounds 2.Peritoneal Cavity : Vide wounds; Contains 50 ml of yellow color fluid with tiny blood clots. 3.Stomach and its contents : Stomach contains 50 ml of colorless fluid. 4.Small intestine : Vide wounds 5.Large intestine : Vide wounds 6.Liver & Gall Bladder : C/S congested 7.Pancreas : Nil particular 8.Spleen Wt. : C/S congested 9.Kidneys Right Wt. : C/S congested Left Wt. : C/S congested 10.Adrenals : Nil particular 11.Pelvic Walls : Nil particular 12.Genital Organs : Nil particular

E – SPINE

1.Spinal Column and Spinal Cord : Intact

F – ADDITIONAL OBSERVATIONS – NIL G – TISSUES PRESERVED FOR FURTHER EXAMINATIONS Viscera preserved for chemical analysis and blood for grouping sent to FSL OPINION AS TO THE TIME OF DEATH

The approximate time of death : Died on 20/01/2018 at 06:55 AM in Thiruvarur Govt. Medical College, Thiruvarur. The cause of death to the best of my knowledge and belief : Due to complications of Stab Wound of Abdomen.

10/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

However, opinion reserved pending for report of chemical analysis of viscera.”

In the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P9) as well as Final Opinion (Ex.P9), P.W.14 had stated that Rajeshkannan (deceased) had died of complications due to stab wound of abdomen.

P.W.15 (Mr.Ramachandran, Scientific Officer in Thanjavur

District Forensic Science Laboratory) had examined the case material objects on 16.02.2018 and had issued Biological Report (Ex.P12) and Serological Report (Ex.P13).

On 22.01.2018, Accused No.2 had surrendered before the District

Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam, pursuant to which, Accused No.2 was sent to judicial custody. On 30.01.2018, P.W.17 recorded the Confession Statement of Accused No.2. Based on the Confession Statement of Accused No.2, P.W.17 altered the section of crime from Sections 294(b) & 302 IPC to Section 294(b), 302 & 109 IPC under Alteration Report (Ex.P21).

11/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

Since P.W.17 went on transfer, P.W.18 (Mr.Mahesh, then

Inspector of Police, Nannilam Police Station) took the case in Crime No.14 of 2018 for investigation. After the completion of investigation, P.W.18 filed the Final Report against the accused.

On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial

Court has held that Accused No.1 is found guilty for commission of offence under Sections 307 & 302 of IPC and Accused No.2 is found guilty for commission of offence under Sections 307 r/w. 109 of IPC. Hence, the Trial Court vide Judgment dated 21.10.2021 in S.C.No.7 of 2019, convicted the

accused and sentenced them as follows:

Name of the Accused and Rank of the Accused	Offence	Punishment
Arivanantham (A1)	Under Section 307 of IPC	To undergo 7 years imprisonment and to pay Rs.1,000/-, in default, to months simple imprisonmen	rigorous a fine of undergo 3 t.
	Under Section 302 of IPC	To undergo life imprisonm pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in undergo 6 months imprisonment.	ent and to default, to simple
Jeyasudha (A2)	Under Section 307 r/w. 109 of IPC	To undergo 4 years imprisonment and to pay Rs.1,000/-, in default, to months simple imprisonmen	rigorous a fine of undergo 3 t.
12/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, Accused No.1 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.546 of 2021 and Accused No.2 has preferred Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2021 before this Court.

Mr.M.Govindaraju, learned counsel for Appellant in Crl.A.No.546 of 2021/Accused No.1 submitted that as per the evidence of P.W.17, on 15.01.2018 at 3.00 p.m., Accused No.1 was arrested near Aanaikuppam Bus Stop, whereas, the FIR in Crime No.17 of 2018 (Ex.D3) registered by P.W.16 reflects that on 14.01.2018, Accused No.1 was attacked by P.W.1, P.W.3 and deceased Rajeshkannan, due to which, Accused No.1 had sustained injuries and thus, he was taking treatment as inpatient in Thiruvarur Government Medical College Hospital and Ex.D3 also reflects that P.W.16 had received the complaint from Accused No.1 on 15.01.2018 at 9.30 p.m. This itself falsifies the evidence of P.W.17 and also, creates a doubt with regard to the genesis of occurrence.

17.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Appellant in Crl.A.No.546 of 2021/Accused No.1 that the alleged occurrence took place

13/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021 on 14.01.2018 (Pongal Festival Day) and at the time of occurrence, deceased

Rajeshkannan was under the influence of alcohol which was evident from the deposition of P.W.13 & P.W.14, Medical Officers who were working at Thiruvarur Government Medical College Hospital. P.W.13 and P.W.14 had deposed in their evidence that there was the presence of alcohol on the body of deceased Rajeshkannan.

17.2. The learned counsel for Appellant in Crl.A.No.546 of 2021/Accused No.1 also submitted that Complaint Statement (Ex.P1) given by deceased Rajeshkannan cannot be accepted as an admissible evidence since the same was given by the deceased when he was taking treatment in the Hospital, but, the said Complaint Statement (Ex.P1) has been considered as dying declaration by the Trial Court.

17.3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for Appellant in Crl.A.No.546 of 2021/Accused No.1 that there was no previous enmity between Accused No.1 and deceased Rajeshkannan. The deceased Rajeshkannan had died due to single blow. Therefore, the offence committed by Accused No.1 would be punishable under Section 304 of IPC,

14/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021 but, the same would not attract the penal provision of Section 302 of IPC.

Mr.Swamisubramanian, learned counsel for Appellant in Crl.A.No.516 of 2021/Accused No.2 submitted that in the present case, eye witnesses have stated that Accused No.2 instigated Accused No.1 to kill P.W.1 and on instigation of Accused No.2, when Accused No.1 attempted to assault P.W.1, at that time, Accused No.1 stabbed Rajeshkannan (deceased) who came for compromising the quarrel between P.W.1 and Accused No.2. However, in Ex.P19, Alteration Report filed by P.W.17, nothing has been mentioned about the instigation of Accused No.2. Accused No.2 has been implicated in this case only after the death of deceased Rajeshkannan which itself shows that prosecution has made Accused No.2 as a scape goat only because of the pressure given by some political parties.

18.1. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for Appellant in Crl.A.No.516 of 2021/Accused No.2 that without properly appreciating the evidence of witnesses, the Trial Court has held that Accused No.2 is found guilty under Section 307 r/w. 109 of IPC. The Trial Court has considered the Complaint Statement (Ex.P1) given by Rajeshkannan (deceased) as dying 15/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021 declaration of the deceased. The Complaint Statement (Ex.P1) speaks only about the stab injury which was caused to Rajeshkannan (deceased) by Accused No.1 alone and the same does not speak about the instigation of Accused No.2. However, the Trial Court has erroneously held in its findings that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 had stabbed the deceased with iron knife in his lower abdomen and caused his death and thereby, Accused No.1 had committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and also, the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that Accused No.1 had attempted to murder P.W.1 only on the instigation of Accused No.2 and thereby, Accused No.1 had committed the offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC and Accused No.2 had abetted the commission of said offence is punishable under Section 307 r/w. 109 of IPC.

18.2. The learned counsel for Appellant in Crl.A.No.516 of 2021/Accused No.2 also submitted that as against Accused No.2, the Trial Court has initially confirmed the charge under Section 307 of IPC and later, confirmed the charge under Section 109 of IPC. The Trial Court has convicted the Accused No.2 under two Sections 307 & 109 of IPC which

16/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

itself is not proper.

We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for Accused No.1 as well as learned counsel for Accused No.2 and we have perused the materials available on record.

The evidence of eye witnesses viz., P.W.1, P.W.2, P.W.3, P.W.5, P.W.9 and P.W.10 clearly reveals that on 14.01.2018, at about 9.00 p.m., there was a wordy quarrel between P.W.1 and Accused No.2 with regard to

the stocking of sand in front of the house of P.W.11 (Sekar). While so, Rajeshkannan (deceased) who is no way connected to the said quarrel went to compromise the said quarrel. At that time, Accused No.1 caused injury on the vital part of the body of Rajeshkannan (deceased) with an iron knife which he kept in his hip, due to which, the intestine of Rajeshkannan (deceased) was protruded. Thereafter, immediately, Rajeshkannan (deceased) was taken to Thiruvarur Government Medical College Hospital for treatment. At the time of admission, P.W.13, Medical Officer enquired Rajeshkannan (deceased) about the injury caused to him, to which, Rajeshkannan (deceased) replied that he was stabbed by a known person.

17/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

Upon receipt of information from the Hospital, P.W.16 went to the Hospital, where, Rajeshkannan (deceased) had given a Complaint Statement (Ex.P1) to P.W.16 stating Accused No.1 had caused a stab injury on his abdomen. Thereafter, on the basis of said Complaint Statement (Ex.P1), P.W.16 registered the FIR in Crime No.14 of 2018 under Section 294(b) and 307 of IPC against Accused No.1. Thereafter, Rajeshkannan (deceased) had died on 20.01.2018 i.e, 6 days after the date of occurrence.

The evidence of P.W.13 clearly reveals that there was a stab injury on the vital part of the body of deceased Rajeshkannan. In the Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P9) and Final Opinion (Ex.P9), it has been stated by P.W.14 that Rajeshkannan (deceased) had died of complications due to stab wound of abdomen.

However, it is evident from the deposition of eye witnesses that there was no actual quarrel between the deceased and A1 and the quarrel was only between P.W.1 and A2. When the deceased interfered to pacify them,

18/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021 at that stage, he also received stab injury. The medical evidence and the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 clearly indicates that P.W.1, deceased and A1, all were drunken at the time of occurrence and they were under the influence of alcohol. The postmortem report also clearly substantiates the fact that alcohol was detected in the viscera of the deceased. It is relevant to note that the entire occurrence took place in a drunken brawl. The statement given by the deceased (Ex.P1) clearly shows that only A1 caused injury. Though the statement recorded from the deceased is to be treated as dying declaration, the fact remains that there was no previous motive or enmity between the parties and only in a sudden quarrel between P.W.1 and A2 in a drunken brawl, when the deceased tried to pacify them, who was also in a drunken state, he received an injury. Therefore, it is clear that there is no intention to cause murder. Further, even after the occurrence, the deceased was conscious in the hospital and he died in the hospital only six days after the date of occurrence. The occurrence took place in the night hours and all of them were intoxicated and there was no intention to cause murder and there was no previous enmity between the accused and the deceased. The accused has also not taken any advantage or acted in an unusual manner, except causing single blow. Therefore, the act of the accused would certainly fall 19/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021 only under Section 304(i) IPC and not under Section 300 IPC.

Therefore, we are inclined to modify the conviction of A1/appellant in Crl.A.No.546 of 2021 from Section 302 IPC to Section 304(i) IPC. Accordingly, the conviction of A1/appellant in Crl.A.546 of 2021 is modified from Section 302 IPC to Section 304(i) IPC and the sentence is reduced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. With the above modifications, Crl.A.No.546 of 2021 is partly allowed. Rest of the judgment of the trial Court qua A1 stands confirmed.

As far as A2/appellant in Crl.A.No.516 of 2021 is concerned, the very inclusion of A2 in the final report itself is on the basis of the agitation made by the public before the Government Hospital. This has been clearly spoken by P.W.17 in the cross-examination. It appears that there was a huge agitation by the public and the Investigating Officer also clearly admitted that there was agitation by one political party to include A2 as accused. Therefore, A2 has been implicated later. Further, the evidence of the eyewitnesses also do not indicate any overt act as against A2/appellant in Crl.A.No.516 of 2021. Therefore, we are of the view that A2 has to be 20/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

acquitted of all the charges. Accordingly, Crl.A.No.516 of 2021 is allowed

and the judgment of conviction and sentence qua A2 is set aside. A2/appellant in Crl.A.No.516 of 2021 is acquitted of all the charges framed

against her. Fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to her. Bail bond(s), if any, executed by A2 shall stand discharged.

(N.S.K.,J.) (M.L.R., J.) 17.11.2025

mrr/mkn

Internet : Yes Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking Order (or) Non-Speaking Order

To

1.The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur.

2.The Inspector of Police, Nannilam Police Station, Thiruvarur District.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli.

21/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

22/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J. and M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

mrr/mkn

Crl.A.Nos.546 & 516 of 2021

17.11.2025

23/23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 21.10.2021 in S.C.No.7 of 2019 convicting Accused No.1 (Arivanantham) under Sections 307 & 302 IPC (7 years RI + Rs.1,000/- fine for S.307; life imprisonment + Rs.2,000/- fine for S.302) and Accused No.2 (Jayasudha) under Section 307 r/w 109 IPC (4 years RI + Rs.1,000/- fine).¶16
Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur · 21.10.2021
Prior proceeding
Occurrence on 14.01.2018 at about 9.00 p.m.: wordy quarrel between Accused No.2 and P.W.1 over stocking of sand; the deceased, who intervened to pacify them, was stabbed in the stomach by Accused No.1 with an iron knife.¶35
Prior proceeding
On the Complaint Statement (Ex.P1) of the injured recorded in hospital on 15.01.2018, P.W.16 registered Crime No.14 of 2018 against Accused No.1 under Sections 294(b) and 307 IPC.¶45
Prior proceeding
P.W.17 arrested Accused No.1 on 15.01.2018 and, on his confession, seized the blood-stained iron knife (M.O.5); accused remanded to judicial custody.¶51
Prior proceeding
The injured died on 20.01.2018 at 6.55 a.m.; sections altered from 294(b) & 307 IPC to 294(b) & 302 IPC (Alteration Report Ex.P19); inquest held and body sent for postmortem.¶52
Prior proceeding
Accused No.2 surrendered before the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Nannilam on 22.01.2018; after recording her confession on 30.01.2018, sections further altered to include 109 IPC (Alteration Report Ex.P21).¶101
Prior proceeding
After P.W.17's transfer, P.W.18 took over investigation of Crime No.14 of 2018 and, on completion, filed the Final Report against the accused.¶106
Prior proceeding
Trial Court found Accused No.1 guilty under Sections 307 & 302 IPC and Accused No.2 guilty under Section 307 r/w 109 IPC, convicting and sentencing them by judgment dated 21.10.2021 in S.C.No.7 of 2019.¶108
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by conviction and sentence, Accused No.1 preferred Criminal Appeal No.546 of 2021 and Accused No.2 preferred Criminal Appeal No.516 of 2021 before the High Court.¶113