Madras High Court
Narayanan vs The Inspector Of Police on 20 July, 2026
Author: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Bench: A.D.Jagadish Chandira
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 13.07.2026
Pronounced on 20 .07.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
and
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
Narayanan ... Appellant
vs.
The Inspector of Police,
Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station,
Virudhunagar. ... Respondents
Prayer:-Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., to set aside the
judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.10.2022 passed by the learned
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar in S.C.No.197 of 2015.
For Appellant Mr.S.M.A.Jinnah
For Respondent Mr.D.Venkatesh
Counsel for State of Tamil Nadu (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.
The instant criminal appeal is filed by the accused (hereinafter referred to as
“the appellant”) seeking to set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated
1/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
26.10.2022 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Virudhunagar (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”) in S.C.No.197 of 2015
(hereinafter referred to as “the impugned judgment”).
2. Vide the impugned judgment, the Trial Court convicted the appellant
and sentenced him as tabulated below:
Penal Provision Imprisonment Fine amount
294(b) of IPC One month -
302 of IPC Life Imprisonment Rs.5000/- I/d to undergo six
months rigorous imprisonment
341 of IPC One month simple -
imprisonment
All the sentences shall run concurrently. Period of detention already undergone
by the appellant was ordered to be set off
3. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows;
3.1. The appellant is the younger brother of Lakshmi (PW1) and
Karupasamy (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) is the son of Lakshmi
(PW1).
3.2. On 29.06.2015, the appellant’s daughter’s marriage was solemnized in
Usilampatti and the marriage reception was held at the house of appellant in the
evening of the very same day. After the function, the appellant quarreled with his
2/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
wife i.e Muthulakshmi in respect of the gift money received during the marriage
and on seeing the said quarrel, the deceased intervened and attempted to resolve
the quarrel by approaching the appellant. However, the appellant dismissed the
deceased’s efforts at the threshold by asking him to restrain himself from
interfering in his issues with his wife.
3.3. Thereafter, at around 10:30 p.m. on 29.06.2015, when the deceased
was returning home and was near the Kshatriya Girls Higher Secondary School
which is situated about 10 feet away from their house, the appellant waylaid the
deceased and confronted him by calling him a bastard. On witnessing the quarrel,
the said Lakshmi (PW1) attempted to resolve the issue but before she could do so,
the appellant suddenly attacked the deceased on the forehead near his eyebrow
with a chisel (MO1), owing to which, the deceased fell unconscious. This was also
witnessed by Sivaganesan (PW2) who was withdrawing money from the Tamil
Nadu Mercantile Bank ATM (for brevity “the ATM”) situated opposite to the
Kshatriya Girls Higher Secondary School and Kathirvel (PW3) who was returning
home via the ATM. After attacking the deceased, the appellant fled the scene
dropping the chisel (MO1) there.
3.4. Suresh Kumar (PW13) who has a lorry office near the place of
occurrence informed the 108 ambulance. By that time, Sivaganesan (PW2) and
3/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
Kathirvel (PW3) took the deceased in their motorcycle to Virudhunagar
Government Hospital. On their way, the ambulance also arrived and took the
deceased to the Virudhunagar Government Hospital.
3.5. On reaching the Virudhunagar Government Hospital at around 11.00
p.m. on 29.06.2015, Dr. Devi Prabha Kalyani (PW24) admitted and treated the
deceased. While treating the deceased, she prepared an accident register (Ex.P11)
noting that the deceased had suffered a 2cm x 1cm x 2cm deep lacerated injury on
the left side of his forehead and an abrasion on his left ear.
3.6. Subsequently, information from Virudhunagar Government Hospital
was sent to one Ramakrishnan, the Sub-Inspector of Police (PW20), Virudhunagar
Bazaar Police Station and upon receipt of the information, the said Sub-Inspector
of Police (PW20) visited the Virudhunagar Government Hospital, where he found
the deceased unconscious. Therefore, he waited for the deceased to regain
consciousness and upon him regaining consciousness at about 6.00 a.m. on
30.06.2015, he recorded his complaint statement (Ex.P1). The signature (Ex.P2) of
the said Lakshmi (PW1) was also obtained attesting the complaint statement
(Ex.P1). Based on the complaint statement (Ex.P1), the said Sub-Inspector of
Police (PW20) registered a First Information Report (Ex.P5) in Cr. No.266 of 2015
on the file of the Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station for the offences punishable
4/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
under Section 294 (b),324, 341 and 506 (ii) IPC and took up the same for
investigation. The Sub-Inspector of Police (PW20) went to the scene of occurrence
at around 7.00 AM and prepared an Observation Mahazar (Ex.P6) and Rough
Sketch (Ex.P7) in the presence of independent witnesses Kannan (PW8) and
Anthonypitchai (PW9). Thereafter, he (PW20) examined various witnesses and
recorded their respective statements.
3.7. At about 4.00 p.m., on 01.07.2015, he (PW20) arrested the appellant
and sent him for remand.
3.8. On 07.07.2015, he (PW20) received an intimation from the Madurai
Rajaji Government Hospital that the deceased had passed away. Hence, due to the
change in circumstance, he entrusted the file of the case in Cr. No.266 of 2015
before Murugesan, the In-charge Inspector of Police (PW23), Virudhunagar Bazaar
Police Station for further investigation.
3.9. At about 9:00AM, on 08.07.2017, the In-charge Inspector of Police
(PW23) took up the case for investigation and went to the Madurai Rajaji
Government Hospital and drew an Inquest Report (Ex.P9). Thereafter, he sent the
body of the deceased for conducting autopsy through one Vidivelli, Head
Constable (PW19).
5/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
3.10. Following that, at about 12.10 hrs. on the same day, Dr. Rajavelu
(PW22) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased at the Madurai Rajaji
Government Hospital and issued a Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P8) reflecting a 18
cm x 1 cm bone depth ‘C’ shaped sutured wound on the left temporoparietal region
and a 2 cm. x 1 cm. healed wound on the outer aspect of the left upper arm (14 cm.
below the shoulder). On observation of the various injuries, the doctor (Ex.P8)
opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to the said head injury or
its complications.
3.11. Hence, on the basis of the opinion received, the In-charge Inspector
of Police (PW23), by way of an alteration report (Ex.P10), altered the offences by
including Section 302 IPC. Thereafter, from 20.07.2015, one Ramnarayanan,
Inspector of Police (PW21), Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, continued the
investigation and examined the remaining witnesses and recorded their respective
statements.
3.12 Lastly, on 26.08.2015, the final report was filed by the Inspector of
Police (PW21), against the appellant for the offences under Sections 294 (b),324,
341 and 506 (ii) IPC and the same was taken cognizance in PRC No.12 of 2015
by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Virudhunagar.
6/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
4. On appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C.
were complied with and thereupon, the case was committed to the Court of Session
in S.C. No. 197 of 2015 and made over to the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed
charges against the appellant for having committed the offences under Sections
294 (b),324, 341 and 506 (ii) IPC. When the charges were read over and explained
to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty.
5. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined 24
witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.24 and marked Ex.P1 to Ex.P11 and M.O.1.
6. The evidence of the key witnesses is as follows:
6.1. The mother of the deceased, Lakshmi (P.W.1.) deposed that the
deceased was her second son and the appellant was her younger brother. The
appellant’s daughter’s marriage took place at Usilampati and the reception took
place in the appellant’s house situated in Periyapettai, Virudhunagar and all the
family members attended the same. After the reception, the appellant was
quarrelling with his wife in respect of the gift money received and seeing the said
quarrel, the deceased intervened and attempted to resolve the quarrel by
approaching the appellant. However, the appellant dismissed the deceased’s efforts
at the threshold by asking him to restrain himself from interfering in his issues with
7/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
his wife. Owing to the said tension, all the family members calmed down theappellant and the deceased. Thereafter, she asked the deceased to come home and
left for her house, following which, at around 10:30 p.m. on 29.06.2015, when the
deceased was near the Kshatriya Girls Higher Secondary School which was
situated about 10 feet away from their house, the appellant confronted the deceased
by calling him a bastard. On witnessing the quarrel, she attempted to resolve the
issue but before she could do so, the appellant suddenly attacked the deceased near
his eyebrow with a chisel (M.O.1). Sivaganesan (PW2) and Kathirvel (PW3) were
near the said place of occurrence by chance and on witnessing the deceased falling
unconscious, they took him in their motorcycle. On their way to the hospital, the
ambulance arrived and took the deceased to the Virudhunagar Government
Hospital. The Police visited him during the night. However, since the deceased
regained conscious only on the next morning i.e. 6:00 a.m. at 30.06.2015, the
police took his complaint statement (ExP1). She further deposed that considering
the nature of the injuries, the deceased was taken to the Madurai Rajaji
Government Hospital and an operation was conducted. Thereafter, treatment was
given to the deceased for one week till he eventually succumbed to his injuries on
07.07.2025 at around 7:00 p.m. Autopsy was done and the body of the deceased
was returned to her. She identified her signature (Ex P2) in the complaint statement
(Ex.P1) and further identified the chisel (M.O.1) as the weapon used by the
appellant.
8/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
6.2. Sivaganesan (PW2) deposed that he knew the appellant. At around
10:30 p.m. on 29.06.2015, when he was withdrawing money from the ATM
situated opposite to the Kshatriya Girls Higher Secondary School, he witnessed
the appellant confronting the deceased by calling him a bastard. While so, the
appellant attacked the deceased on the forehead near his eyebrow with a chisel
(M.O.1) he had in his hand. On witnessing the same, Lakshmi (PW1) came
running towards the deceased and on being startled by the sight of them, the
appellant ran away. He along with one Kathirvel (PW3) informed the ambulance
and since there was a delay while waiting for the ambulance, they took the
deceased in their motorcycle. When they crossed the MGR statue and reached near
the bridge, the ambulance arrived and took the deceased to the Virudhunagar
Government Hospital. Thereafter, he enquired and found that during the
appellant’s daughter’s marriage reception, the appellant was quarrelling with his
wife in respect of the gift money received and hence, the deceased attempted to
settle the said quarrel. Keeping such interference by the deceased in mind, the
appellant attacked the deceased. He informed whatever he learnt, to the police. He
further deposed that the deceased was taken to the Madurai Rajaji Government
Hospital where treatment was given to the deceased for one week till he eventually
succumbed to his injuries. He identified the chisel (M.O.1.) as the weapon used by
the appellant.
9/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
6.3. Kathirvel (PW3) deposed almost on identical lines as Sivaganesan
(PW2).
6.4. Suresh Kumar (PW13) deposed that around 10:00 p.m., when he was
at his office he heard a loud sound, upon which he found the appellant attacking
his relative on his head with a chisel (M.O.1.). Therefore, he informed the
ambulance and since there was a delay in the amublance reaching the scene, they
took the deceased on a motorcycle. On their way to the hospital, the ambulance
had reached and took the deceased to the Virudhunagar Government Hospital,
after which, he returned to his office and later, after one week, he heard that the
deceased had died.
6.5. The father of the deceased, Chandrasekar (PW15) deposed that the
deceased, along with his family, attended the appellant’s daughter’s marriage
function where the appellant and the deceased fought as the deceased has sought
the gift money received during the marriage. On the same day of the marriage, the
appellant, at around 10:30 p.m., attacked the deceased near the Padma Nagar
Petrol Bunk. When he chased the appellant, he ran away. The people at the scene
helped in taking the deceased to the Government Hospital and from there, the
deceased was taken to Madurai for further treatment where he eventually
succumbed to his injuries.
10/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
6.6. Karuppasamy (PW18) deposed that when he was working as a
Special Sub Inspector of Police at the Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, on
07.07.2015, he received case papers in Crime No.262 of 2015 from the Incharge
Inspector of Police (PW23) and handed over the same to learned Judicial
Magistrate No. I, Virudhunagar.
6.7. Vidivelli (PW19) deposed that when he was working as Head
Constable at the Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, at about 7.30 AM on
08.07.2015, he received the passport from the Inspector of Police (PW23) and
hence, went to the Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and identified the body
of the deceased. Thereafter, he awaited the conclusion of the autopsy and
thereafter, handed over the body of the deceased to the relatives of deceased.
6.8. Ramakrishnan (PW20) deposed that when he was working as the Sub
Inspector of Police at the Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, at about 11.10 p.m.
on 29.06.2015, he received an intimation from the Virudhunagar Government
Hospital, subsequent to which, he visited the said hospital, where he found the
deceased unconscious. Therefore, he waited for the deceased to regain
consciousness and upon him gaining consciousness at about 6.00 AM on
30.06.2015, he recorded the complaint statement (Ex.P1) of the deceased and the
11/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
signature (Ex.P2) of Lakshmi (PW1) was also obtained attesting the complaint
statement (Ex.P1). Based on the complaint statement (Ex.P1), he registered an
FIR (Ex.P5) in Cr. No.266 of 2015 on the file of the Virudhunagar Bazaar Police
Station for the offences punishable under Section 294 (b) IPC, Section 324 IPC,
Section 341 IPC and 506 (II) IPC and took up the same for investigation. Later, he
went to the scene of occurrence at around 7.00 AM and prepared an Observation
Mahazar (Ex.P6) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P7) in the presence of independent
witnesses Kannan (PW8) and Anthonypitchai (PW9). Thereafter, he (PW20)
examined various witnesses and recorded their respective statements. Further, at
about 4.00 p.m., on 01.07.2015, he arrested the accused and sent him for remand.
Lastly, on 07.07.2015 he received an intimation from the Madurai Rajaji
Government Hospital that the deceased had demised. Hence, due to the change in
circumstance, he placed the case file before the In-charge Inspector of Police
(PW23) for further investigation.
6.9. Ramnarayanan (PW21) deposed that when he was working as the
Inspector of Police at the Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, he continued the
investigation and examined the remaining witnesses and recorded their respective
statements. Further, on 26.08.2015, he filed the final report against the appellant
for the offences under Sections 341,294(b) and 302 of IPC.
12/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
6.10. Dr. Rajavel (PW22) deposed that when he was working as an
Assistant Professor in Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital, at about 12:10 p.m.
on 08.07.2015, based on the requisition received from the Inspector of Police at
the Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, he conducted the autopsy of the body of
the deceased and issued a Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P8) reflecting a 18 cm. X 1
cm. bone depth ‘C’ shaped sutured wound on the left temporoparietal region and a
2 cm. x 1 cm. healed wound on the outer aspect of the left upper arm. On
observation of the various injuries, he opined in his Postmortem Certificate
(Ex.P8) that the deceased would appear to have died due to the said head injury or
its complications.
6.11. Murugesan (PW23) deposed that when he was working as the In-
charge Inspector of Police at the Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, based on the
complaint statement (Ex.P1), an FIR (Ex.P5) was registered in Cr. No.266 of 2015
on the file of the Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station for the offences punishable
under Sections 294 (b),324,341 and 506 (ii) IPC and since the deceased had died,
the said case was transferred to him for further investigation. Thereafter, on
08.07.2017, he sent the body of the deceased for conducting the autopsy. Since the
deceased had died during the investigation of the case, he, by way of an alteration
report (Ex.P10), altered the offences already registered, by including Section 302
IPC. Lastly, he handed over the case to one Ramnarayanan, the Inspector of Police
13/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
(PW21), Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station, for further investigation.
6.12. Dr. Devi Prabha Kalyani (PW.24) deposed that when she was working
as an Assistant Doctor at the Virudhunagar Government Hospital, at about 11.00
p.m. on 29.06.2015, the deceased was brought to the said hospital through
ambulance. She was informed that a known person had attacked the deceased with
a chisel (MO1). The deceased was inebriated. While treating the deceased, she
prepared an accident register (Ex.P11) noting that the deceased had suffered a 2
cm. x 1 cm. x 2 cm. deep lacerated injury on the left side of his forehead and an
abrasion on his left ear. The deceased was admitted as an inpatient to the male
operation wing.
7. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, when the appellant
was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. on the incriminating circumstances
appearing against him, he blatantly denied the same as false without offering any
explanation whatsoever and he did not examine any witness or mark any document
on his side.
8. The Trial Court, after hearing the arguments on both sides, found the
appellant guilty and convicted and sentenced him as tabulated at paragraph 2,
14/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
supra, vide the impugned judgment and challenging his conviction and sentence,
the instant criminal appeal has been filed by the accused i.e. appellant.
9. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted as follows:
9.1. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place at 10.30 p.m., and
therefore, the presence of the eyewitnesses i.e. Lakshmi (PW1), Sivaganesan
(PW2), Kathirvel (PW3), Suresh Kumar (PW13) and Chandrasekar (PW15) at the
scene of occurrence cannot be believed. Moreso, though the alleged occurrence is
said to have taken place in front of the ATM, the prosecution has not taken any
earnest effort to obtain and produce the CCTV footage to prove the occurrence and
hence, the alleged occurrence itself is highly doubtful.
9.2. The witnesses have all categorically stated that the scene of occurrence
is a busy road and therefore, the non-examination of independent witnesses creates
a grave doubt in the prosecution’s case. Further, in this regard, the Trial Court
failed to take into consideration that if the scene of occurrence was indeed a busy
road, then, there ought not to have been any delay in the registration of the FIR
(Ex.P5).
15/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
9.3. In the alternative, the appellant and the deceased are close relatives. The
occurrence is alleged to have occurred immediately after the quarrel. The deceased
is also said to have been in an inebriated condition. The appellant as well as the
deceased are carpenters by profession and hence, the weapon used is also a chisel
(MO1) used for carpentry. The occurrence is alleged to have happened on
29.06.2015 and the deceased was initially admitted to the Virudhunagar
Government Hospital and thereafter, was shifted to the Madurai Rajaji Government
Hospital where he eventually died after 8 days on 07.07.2015. Neither the doctor
who had treated the deceased nor the case sheet i.e. treatment history was marked
by the prosecution and hence, there is no evidence to conclusively prove that the
injury was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. In such circumstances, an
offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be made out and the appellant ought to have
been convicted under Section 304 (II) IPC. While sentencing the appellant, his old
age may be taken into consideration and a lesser sentence may hence be imposed
on him.
10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent
submitted as follows:
10.1. The occurrence took place while the deceased was returning home
from a function at the appellant’s house, wherein the appellant and the deceased
16/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
had previously quarreled. The eyewitnesses i.e. Lakshmi (PW1), Sivaganesan(PW2), Kathirvel (PW3), Suresh Kumar (PW13) and Chandrasekar (PW15) who
were present at the scene of occurrence had also witnessed the appellant’s overt act
and informed the ambulance and took the deceased to the Virudhunagar
Government Hospital. Therefore, the said eyewitnesses have, through their cogent
testimonies, categorically established that the appellant attacked the deceased on
his forehead with his chisel (M.O.1) inflicting bodily injuries which eventually
caused the death of the deceased. The testimony of the eyewitnesses are to be
believed as they are cogent with one another and further, even the complaint
statement (Ex.P1) of the deceased corroborates with their testimonies by
confirming their presence at the scene of occurrence. Therefore, the overt act of the
appellant stands proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
10.2. The complaint statement (Ex.P1) itself was lodged by the deceased,
when he was admitted to the hospital and therefore, the same may be treated as a
dying declaration.
10.3. The weapon used by the appellant is his Chisel (M.O.1) and owing to
the nature of the weapon, the deceased has also sustained a linear lacerated injury
as confirmed by the Accident Register (Ex.P11). Further, the same is also
corroborated by the testimony of Dr. Devi Prabha Kalyani (PW24). The variation
17/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
in the shape of the injury as noted in the Postmortem Report (Ex.P8) has also been
clarified by Dr. Rajavelu (PW22) who had confirmed that the ‘Ç’ shaped cervical
injury was due to the sutures. Therefore, the injury sustained by the deceased
stands proven beyond all reasonable doubt.
10.4. When the overt act of the appellant as well as the resultant injury has
been categorically proven by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt, the Trial
Court was right in convicting the appellant for life and therefore, the appeal may
be dismissed.
11. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival
contentions put forward and thoroughly scanned through the entire evidence
available on record and also perused the impugned judgment of conviction and
sentence.
12. On doing so, this Court finds that it is the case of the prosecution that
the appellant caused the death of the deceased by inflicting a bodily injury on his
forehead with a chisel (M.O.1). From the materials available on record, this Court
further finds the case of the prosecution to be well supported by the evidence of the
eyewitnesses i.e. Lakshmi (PW1), Sivaganesan (PW2), Kathirvel (PW3), Suresh
Kumar (PW13) and Chandrasekar (PW15). Their testimonies are cogent and
18/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
sufficient to corroborate one another to the extent that all of them have witnessed
the appellant attacking the deceased with a chisel (M.O.1) owing to which he fell
unconscious and as a collective effort by the eyewitnesses, the deceased was taken
to the hospital where he eventually succumbed to his injuries. Contrary to the
allegation of the appellant that the presence of the eyewitnesses is doubtful, this
Court finds no material whatsoever to doubt the presence of the eyewitnesses and
is rather persuaded by the cogency of their testimonies to not only believe their
presence but also believe the occurrence.
13. On the other hand, the deceased was taken to the Virudhunagar
Government Hospital wherein the attending doctor, Dr. Devi Prabha Kalyani
(PW24), while treating the deceased, prepared an accident register (Ex.P11) noting
that the deceased had suffered a 2 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm deep lacerated injury on the
left side of his forehead and an abrasion on his left ear. Her testimony also
corroborates the contents of the accident register (Ex.P11). Therefore, an injury
consistent with the weapon i.e. chisel (M.O.1) has also been proved by the
prosecution.
14. Moreso, the Sub Inspector of Police (PW20), on receipt of information
from the Virudhunagar Government Hospital, visited the hospital on the night of
the occurrence itself and was, in fact, not able to record the statement of the
19/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
deceased only due to him having lost consciousness. Immediately, upon the
deceased regaining consciousness, his complaint statement (Ex.P1) was recorded
and on the basis of the same, a case was also instantaneously registered. Therefore,
the sequence of events is cogent and there is no inordinate delay on the side of the
prosecution as alleged by the appellant and therefore, this Court finds no doubt or
infirmity in the complaint statement (Ex.P1) or the First Information Report
(Ex.P5).
15. However, the contention of the appellant in respect of the failure of
the prosecution to prove the proximate cause of death needs to be looked into. As
per the prosecution’s case, the deceased was initially admitted to the Virudhunagar
Government Hospital on 29.06.2015 and later, he was shifted to Madurai Rajaji
Government Hospital for further treatment on 30.06.2015 where he eventually
succumbed to his injuries on 07.07.2015. On perusal of the records available, this
Court finds that there is no material whatsoever to suggest that the bodily injury
caused by the appellant’s overt act was sufficient to cause the death of the
deceased. Further, this Court finds that even the testimonies of both the doctors
(PW22 and PW24) do not suggest the said injury was sufficient to cause the death
of the deceased. In fact, Dr. Rajavelu (PW22), the doctor who conducted the
autopsy, has also issued his Postmortem Certificate (Ex.P8) opining that the
deceased would appear to have died due to the said head injury or its
20/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
complications but has not deposed that the injury was conclusively sufficient, in
the ordinary course of nature, to cause the death of the deceased.
16. Taking into consideration the nature of injuries and further taking into
consideration the long time gap between the time of infliction of the said injury
and the time of death of the deceased and upon giving due consideration to the
failure of the prosecution to lead evidence as to the nature and particulars of
treatment, this Court finds that it cannot be conclusively found that the proximate
cause of death was the said injury. Having found so, this Court finds its useful to
place reliance on Harish Kumar v. State (Delhi Admn.) [1994 Supp (1) SCC
462], wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that when no sufficient
material as to the nature of the treatment given to the deceased during his time in
the hospital were available on record, even though the injury may have resulted in
the death of the deceased, it cannot be conclusively said that it was sufficient to
cause death. Harish Kumar, supra, has also been followed by various Coordinate
Benches of this Court in Rajan and others v. State by Inspector of Police [2002
LW (Crl) 789], Thamilarasan v. State by Inspector of Police [2004 SCC OnLine
Mad 777], Ponnambalam v. State [2017 SCC OnLine Mad 28158] and
Ramasamy v. State [2019 SCC OnLine Mad 24973]. Instead of adverting to all
these decisions thereby, making this judgment prolix, it would suffice to extract the
relevant portion from Ponnambalam, supra, which is as follows:
21/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023“42. In Harish Kumar v. State (Delhi Admn.), reported
in1994 Supp (1) SCC 462 : AIR 1993 SC 973, the Honourable
Supreme Court has held that:
“6. The next question is what is the offence
the appellant had committed. We have seen the
evidence. Mr. V.C. Mahajan, learned counsel for
the State contended that the appellant came one
hour after the initial exchange of words; he came
with sharp edged weapon and without any
provocation he inflicted the injury on the deceased
when he was held back by the acquitted co-
accused. That would show that there is an
intention to kill him, and as per the doctor the
injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause the death coming within clause
thirdly of Section 300 IPC. It is no doubt true, as
rightly contended, that if read in isolation by itself
the offence may be murder, but when closely
scrutinised the evidence in this behalf, we find that
the evidence cannot conclusively show that the
offence can be brought within clause thirdly of
Section 300 IPC.
7. We have seen the nature of the injuries
and also the time gap between the time of
infliction of the injury till the date of death which
was two days after the injury was inflicted. We
have no sufficient material as to the nature of the
treatment given to the deceased during those two
days.
8. Under these circumstances, though the
injury had resulted in the death of the deceased, we
cannot conclusively say that it was sufficient to
cause his death. Accordingly, the offence would be
one falling under Section 304 Part II of IPC. In the
result, we set aside the conviction under Section
302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment and
convict the appellant under Section 304 Part II of
IPC and impose a sentence of imprisonment for a
period of seven years? rigorous imprisonment. The
appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent
22/27https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
and the appellant shall undergo rigorous
imprisonment for a period of seven years.”
43. The decision in Harish Kumar‘s case (cited supra) has
been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Rajan v.
State, rep.by Inspector of Police,, reported in 2002 – L.W. (Crl.) 789
and also in a later decision of this Court in Thamilarasan v. State by
Inspector of Police, Sirkazhi, reported in 2004 (1) MWN (Cr.) 208
(DB)., wherein, in Paragraph No. 13, it has been held as follows:
“13. It is also relevant to refer another
Division Bench decision of this Court in Rajan v.
State, represented by Inspector of Police, etc.,
reported in 2002 (2) L.W. (Cri) 769. It was
contended before the Division Bench that even
assuming the prosecution has proved its case
beyond all reasonable doubts, A-1 cannot be found
guilty under Section 302 IPC and at best he can be
held guilty only under Section 304 Part II, IPC. In
support of the said contention, out of two points
referred to, the second point relates to non-
examination of the Doctor who treated the
deceased at CMC Hospital, Coimbatore. In that
case, the deceased died after two days at the CMC
Hospital, Coimbatore and that the nature of the
treatment given to the deceased during that period
has not been made known to the Court by marking
the case sheet or by examining the Doctor
concerned, who treated the deceased.”While accepting the said contention, taking note of the fact
that the Doctor who treated the deceased at the CMC Hospital,
Coimbatore was not examined and case sheet not produced, the
Division Bench has concluded thus: (para 15)“15. We also find substance in the
submission that the non-examination of the Doctor,
who treated the deceased at the CMC Hospital,
Coimbatore and failure to produce the case sheet
would come to rescue of the accused from being
found guilty under Section 302 IPC. As rightly
pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant, had the case sheet been marked and the
Doctor who treated the deceased was examined, the
23/27https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
accused would have been in a position to examine
the same and cross examine on the aspects
required.”The Division Bench has also referred to a ruling of the
Supreme Court in Harish Kumar v. State (Delhi Administration),
reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 462 : AIR 1993 S.C. 973 wherein
the Supreme Court pointed out that the Court was not given proper
materials to examine the nature of the treatment given to the
deceased. After referring to the factual details, in the absence of
examination of the Doctor, who treated the deceased and other
materials like case sheet etc., the Supreme Court has observed
thus:
“We have seen the nature of the injuries and
also the time gap between the time of infliction of
the injury till the date of death which was two days
after the injury was inflicted. We have no sufficient
material as to the nature of the treatment given to
the deceased during those two days in the case
before the Division Bench, the deceased died after
a period of two days at the C.M.C. Hospital,
Coimbatore. Even for the treatment for the period
of two days, due to non-examination of the Doctor,
who treated the deceased at the said hospital and
failure to produce the case sheet, accepted the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellant and found that A-1 can be held guilty
24/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
only under Section 304 Part II and not underSection 302 IPC.”
17. Thus, considering the facts of the present case, the evidence on record
and keeping in mind the ratio of Harish Kumar, supra, this Court comes to the
inevitable conclusion that since it is not the case of the prosecution that the overt
act of the appellant was premeditated and since the injury has not been proven to
have caused death in the ordinary course of nature, the present case cannot be
brought within the confines of Section 302 IPC and thus, the conviction ought to
have been under Section 304 (II) of IPC.
18. Lastly, this Court finds that insofar as the conviction under Section
341 IPC, the same may be sustained as the prosecution has established that the
deceased was waylaid by the appellant before being attacked. However, this Court
finds that insofar as the conviction under Section 294(b) IPC, the same is
unsustainable as it is not the case of the prosecution that the bad words uttered by
the appellant caused annoyance to others.
19. In the result, the Criminal appeal stands partly allowed. The
impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.10.2022 passed by the
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Virudhunagar in S.C.No.197 of 2015 is set
25/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
aside and the appellant is convicted and sentenced as follows;
Penal Provision Imprisonment Fine amount
304(II) of IPC Five (5) Years Rigorous Rs.5000/- I/d to undergo
Imprisonment three (3) months rigorous
imprisonment
341 of IPC One (1) month simple -
imprisonment
The aforesaid sentences shall run concurrently. The period of detention and
imprisonment, if any, already undergone, shall stand set off. The trial Court is
directed to take steps to secure the appellant to undergo the remaining period of
sentence.
[A.D.J.C.,J.] [R.P.,J]
20.07.2026
Index : Yes/No
aav
To
1. The Additional District and Sessions Judge
Virudhunagar
2. The Inspector of Police
Virudhunagar Bazaar Police Station
Virudhunagar
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai
4. The Section Officer
Criminal Section (Records)
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai.
26/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.
and
R.POORNIMA, J.
aav
Pre Delivery Judgment made
in
Crl.A(MD) No.605 of 2023
20.07.2026
27/27
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
