Madras High Court
Murugan vs The Inspector Of Police on 11 March, 2026
Author: N. Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 11.03.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
Crl.A.(MD) No.502 of 2023
Murugan ... Appellant
-vs-
The Inspector of Police
Periyakulam Police Station
Theni District
Crime No.194 of 2021 ...Respondent
Criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., to call for the
records and set aside the judgment, conviction and sentence passed by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam dated 28.04.2023
in SC No.132 of 2021.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Muniyandi
for S.Sundarapandian
For Respondent : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
1/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
JUDGMENT
P.DHANABAL, J.,
Challenging the conviction and sentence rendered by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam, in SC No.132 of 2021
dated 28.04.2023, the present criminal appeal has been filed by the
appellant.
2.. The trial Court has convicted the appellant as follows:
Penal Sentence of Fine Amount
Provisions Imprisonment
302 of IPC Life Rs.5,000/- i/d to undergo one
Imprisonment year rigorous imprisonment
3. The case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased
are adjacent land holders and there was a land dispute between them in
respect of ridges, while so on 17.05.2021 at about 11.00 a.m., the deceased
along with is wife/PW.1, daughter/PW.2 and grand daughter/PW.3 were
collecting grass in the land, at that time the deceased selvam had cut his
ridges on the western side of the land, at that time the appellant came with
sickle and assaulted the said Selvam saying that very often you are cutting
2/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
ridges and encroaching the land and also abused in filthy language and
cut his left leg below the knee, therefore he sustained blood injuries.
Immediately the deceased fell down and thereafter the appellant ran away
from the place of occurrence.
3.1. P.W.1 wife of the deceased came there and poured water on the
face and he was unconscious and thereafter he died. PW.1 went to the
police station and lodged complaint/Ex.P.1.Based on the said complaint
PW.12 registered a First Information Report /Ex.P.8 in Crime No.194 of
2021 for the offences under Section 302 of IPC. Thereafter P.W.14 has taken
over the investigation of the case and he went to the place of occurrence
and prepared observation mahazhar/Ex.P.4 and rough sketch/Ex.P.9 in
the presence of witnesses and thereafter he conducted inquest on the body
of the deceased and prepared inquest report/Ex.P.10. Thereafter he had
taken steps to sent the body of the deceased to post mortem. Thereafter the
doctor/P.W.11 had conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased
and issued post mortem certificate /Ex.P.6 and after obtaining report from
forensic lab he gave final opinion/Ex.P.7. Thereafter P.W.14 arrested the
appellant on 17.05.2021 and the appellant voluntarily gave confession
3/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
statement and based on the disclosure statement he recovered M.O.1 in
the presence of witnesses and thereafter the appellant was remanded to
judicial custody. Thereafter P.W.15 conducted further investigation in this
case, filed final report after examining witnesses.
3.2. On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207
of Cr.P.C. were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of
Session, where it was taken on file in in SC No.131 of 2021 and made over
to the Additional Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam for trial.
3.3. After receipt of case papers, the trial Court has framed charges
for the offence under Sections 294(b) and 302 of IPC The above charges
were read over and explained to the appellant. The appellant denied the
charges and claimed to be tried.
3.4. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 to P.W.15 and marked exhibits
Ex.P.1 to P.16 and material objects M.O.1 to M.O.6 were produced. After
completion of prosecution witnesses the appellant was questioned under
Section 313 (1)(b) of Cr.P.C., with regard to the incriminating
4/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same as false. On the
side of the appellant no one was examined and no documents were
marked.
3.5. After analyzing the evidence and upon hearing both sides, the
trial Court has acquitted the appellant for the offence under Section 294 (b)
of IPC and convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC
and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/-
in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the
said judgment of conviction the present appeal has been filed by the
appellant.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
there is a dispute between the appellant and the deceased and due to that
enmity the defacto complainant lodged a false complaint as against the
appellant and based on the said complaint the respondent police registered
a case in Crime No.194 of 2021 for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
The Investigation Officer without proper investigation filed final report
and the trial Court without any prima facie materials framed charges and
5/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
the prosecution have not established the guilt of the appellant for the
offences charged against him and the evidence are filled with doubts. The
prosecution witness are not cogent and the prosecution failed to prove the
charges beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution failed to prove the
recovery of material objects. The complaint itself has not been marked and
the prosecution only marked the signature of P.W.1 in the complaint and
all the witnesses are interested and related witnesses and the prosecution
has not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubts. However the trial
Court without appreciation of evidence erroneously convicted the
appellant and thereby judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court is
liable to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed.
5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there
was enmity between the appellant and the deceased due to land dispute
and on the date of occurrence when the deceased was cutting the ridges
through hoe at that time P.W.1 to 3 were collecting grass. After seeing the
deceased the appellant came there along with sickle and cut the left leg
below knee saying that always you are creating problem by encroaching
the land and immediately P.W.1 came there and poured water on the fact
6/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
but the deceased was unconscious and the appellant ran away from the
place of occurrence. Thereafter P.W.1 gave complaint before the
respondent police and based on the said complaint they registered a case
and thereafter the case was investigated by P.W.14 and P.W.15. To prove
the case the prosecution has examined P.W. 1 to P.W.15 and marked
exhibits Ex.P.1 to P.16 and produced six material objects.
5.1. P.W.1 to P.W.3 are the eye witnesses and the doctor who
conducted autopsy has categorically deposed about the injuries sustained
by the deceased and the cause of death, therefore the prosecution has
established the charges levelled against the appellant. Further the trial
Court after analyzing the evidence correctly convicted the appellant for the
offence under Section 302 of IPC, however acquitted the appellant for the
offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC. The trial Court also after elaborate
discussion based on evidence came to conclusion that the prosecution has
proved the charges levelled as against the appellant and rightly convicted
the appellant and awarded sufficient punishment and hence the appeal is
liable to be dismissed
7/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
6. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available
on record.
7. In this case the appellant has been charged for the offence under
Sections 294 (b) and 302 of IPC. The trial Court has acquitted the appellant
for the offence under Section 294 (b) of IPC and convicted the appellant for
the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life
imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- indefault to undergo one year
rigorous imprisonment. In this case P.W.1 to P.W.6 are the eye witnesses
and due to enmity between the appellant and the deceased regarding land
dispute on the date of occurrence the appellant had cut the left leg of the
deceased and thereby due to hemorrhage and shock the deceased died.
8. P.W.1 who is the defacto complainant and eye witness to the
occurrence has deposed that on the date of occurrence she along with his
daughter and grand daughter had collected grass and at that time her
husband/deceased Selvam@ Selvaraj was cutting the ridges of his land
through hoe, at that time when she was taking water to her husband the
8/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
appellant came there with aruval and assaulted by saying that always you
are cutting the ridges and used obscene words and cut the left leg and ran
away, immediately the wife of the deceased poured water on the face of
her husband, he was unconscious and thereafter he died, and thereafter
the wife of the deceased gave complaint. In the complaint also she stated
the same version.
9. P.W.2 also categorically deposed about the manner of occurrence
and according to her evidence on 17.05.2024 at about 11.00 a.m., her father
and daughter were on field at that time she was taking water to the cattle
and her mother is also taking water at that time the appellant and the
deceased were scolding each other. When her father was cutting the ridges
the appellant cut his left leg with sickle and thereafter immediately he fell
down and died on the spot and the appellant ran awy from the place of
occurrence.
10. P.W.3 also who is aged about 10 years child witness also deposed
that when she was along with grand father, grand mother and mother in
the filed the appellant came there and cut the left leg of his grand father.
9/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
P.W.4 to 6 are the independent witnesses and they have also witnessed the
occurrence. They also stated that the appellant cut the deceased on his leg.
The evidence of PW.1 to PW.6 have not been shaken through cross
examination and their evidence are natural and cogent. The evidences of
P.W.1 to P.W.6 cannot be discarded in any way, therefore the prosecution
has proved that the appellant had cut the leg of the deceased with sickle.
11. The doctor who conducted post mortem has also deposed that
the deceased sustained following injuries:
“ A deep transverse cut injury on back and both sides
of left knee joint measuring 11cm x 5cmx bone deep”
and he also opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhage and shock
for the injuries sustained by him. The Investigation Officer also deposed
about the fair investigation, arrest of appellant and recovery of material
objects through the confession statement of the appellant. Therefore the
prosecution has proved the charges levelled against him for the offence
under Section 302 of IPC beyond all reasonable doubts.
10/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
12. Therefore from the evidences the prosecution has proved the
occurrence as against the appellant. The trial Court after elaborate
discussion and analyzing the evidence found the appellant guilty and
convicted him for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
13. So far as offence under Section 302 of IPC is concerned the
evidence shows that there was wordy quarrel between the deceased and
the appellant due to land dispute and the deceased also cut the ridges of
the land at that time there was a scuffle between the appellant and the
deceased and thereby the appellant cut the leg of the deceased.
14. There is no intention on the part of the appellant to kill the
deceased and he only cut the leg of the deceased and the deceased
sustained only one injury on his leg, therefore the act of the appellant is not
coming under definition of 300 of IPC and it comes under Exception 4 to
Section 300 of IPC. As per Section 300 of IPC exception IV the culpable
homicide not amounting to murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in a heat of passion upon a sudden
11/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted
in a cruel or unusual manner. In the case on hand there was a dispute
between the appellant and the deceased in respect of land and on the date
of occurrence the appellant was cutting the ridges of the land and due to
which there was a sudden quarrel between them and the appellant cut the
left leg of the deceased with sickle. There is no premeditation on the part
of the appellant to commit the murder and to sudden quarrel the
occurrence said to have taken place and thereby the deceased sustained
injuries only on the leg and not in the vital parts of the body. In the
considered view of this Court, the facts of the present case can be brought
within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC. There was no premeditation on
the part of the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. There was
a sudden fight and in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, the
appellant attacked the deceased. Thereby the act of the appellant will
certainly come under Exception IV of Section 300 of IPC.
15. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed and the
judgment of conviction under Section 302 of IPC passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Theni at Periyakulam, in S.C.No.132 of 2021
12/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
dated 28.04.2023 is set aside the appellant is found guilty for the offence
under section 304 (ii) and he is convicted under Section 304 Part II of IPC.
The appellant is sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment
and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo six months simple
imprisonment. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant
shall be set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. as against the substantive
sentence. The fine amount already paid for the offence under section 302 of
IPC can be adjusted to the fine payable for the offence under section 304(ii)
of IPC. Bail bond if any executed by the appellant shall stand cancelled.
The trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the appellant to undergo
the remaining period of sentence.
[N.A.V.,J] [P.D.B.,J]
11.03.2026
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
aav
13/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
To
1. The Additional Sessions Judge,
Theni at Periyakulam
2. The Inspector of Police
Periyakulam Police Station,
Theni District
3. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
4. The Record keeper
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai
14/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )
Crl.A(MD) No.502 of 2023
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
and
P.DHANABAL, J.
aav
Crl.A.(MD) No.502 of 2023
11.03.2026
15/15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 23/03/2026 04:28:34 pm )