Madras High Court Refuses To Set Aside Murder Conviction, Finds 'Wordy Quarrel' With Deceased Insufficient To Show Accused Was Provoked
While refusing to set aside the conviction of a man for murder, the Madras High Court held that wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased could not prove that there was grave and sudden provocation for bringing in an exception. The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima held that to prove grave and sudden provocation, the individual, due to extreme...
While refusing to set aside the conviction of a man for murder, the Madras High Court held that wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased could not prove that there was grave and sudden provocation for bringing in an exception.
The bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice R Poornima held that to prove grave and sudden provocation, the individual, due to extreme emotional distress caused by provocative action or circumstances, should lose self-control and commit a wrongful act, potentially leading to death. The court added that to prove an offence as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, it must be shown that the accused was provoked by an act of the deceased. In the present case, though the court agreed that there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased, there was no proof that the deceased had provoked the accused to commit murder.
“Grave and sudden provocation means in a situation, an individual due to extreme emotional distress caused by provocative actions or circumstances, loses self-control and commits a wrongful act, potentially leading to death. To prove the offence as culpable homicide not amounting to murder, there must be evidence showing that the accused was provoked by the act of the deceased lost his self-control and caused death. However, according to P.W.2, both the deceased and accused had a wordy quarrel. It is not proved that the deceased provoked the accused to commit murder,” the court said.
The court was hearing an appeal filed by Marudhu Pandi against his conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 302 IPC. He was accused of causing multiple stabs on the deceased, who was his neighbour and with whose family he had a property dispute.
The prosecution case was that the accused and his father were residing in the house opposite to the deceased and had enmity with their family. The parties often engaged in verbal quarrels. While so, on April 27, 2014, when the husband of deceased was coming back from the field, he saw that the accused came to their house and using the knife hidden in his hip, he indiscriminately stabbed his wife on the back of her neck. Both him and his granddaughter raised an alarm, and the occurrence was witnessed by others. Though the complainant tried to catch the accused, he fled away. His wife later succumbed to the injuries.
The husband lodged a complaint and the accused was subsequently arrested. After the full trial, the trial court found the accused guilty of offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000 in default to undergo two years simple imprisonment.
On appeal, Marudhu Pandi argued that the husband was shown as an occurrence witness and his presence as an eyewitness goes against the prosecution case. It was submitted that as per the evidence of Doctor who conducted autopsy said that the occurrence could have taken place 38 hours before the postmortem. Thus, the evidence of the Doctor regarding time of death completely ruled out the substratum of the prosecution case.
The appellant also argued that even as per the prosecution case, there was wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased just before the occurrence. Thus, there was every possibility that there was sudden provocation preceded by a sudden provocation. Thus, it was argued that it was not a case of murder per se but that of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The court rejected the arguments. The court noted that there was no reason to doubt the evidence of the child witness. The court also noted that as per the post-mortem report, the death occurred 16 to 24 hours before post-mortem and there was no endorsement showing that death occurred 38 hours prior.
The court noted that all the witnesses stated that the accused arrived at the scene and inflicted injuries ultimately causing death. Thus, the court noted that the act of accused amounted to murder under Section 300 IPC.
Noting that the prosecution had established the guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the trial court.
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. A. Thiruvadi Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Marudhu Pandi v. The State
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 120
Case No: Crl. A (MD)No.377 of 2021
