Supreme Court upholds conviction in case of murder after family feud over unpaid electricity bill
Justices Abhay S Oka & Ujjal Bhuyan [10-07-2024]
Read Order: Shanmugasekar v. The State of Tamil Nadu [SC- CRL APL NO. 204 OF 2024]
LE Correspondent
New Delhi, July 11, 2024: The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal filed by a man convicted of killing a member of his extended family during an altercation over unpaid electricity charges. The top court rejected the defence’s argument that the accused had no motive to kill the deceased and that there was sudden provocation, thereby upholding his conviction for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
“If there was no intention on the part of the appellant to cause bodily injury to the deceased and other injured witnesses, there was no reason for him to go back to his house and bring the weapon. He brought the billhook from his home, obviously to make an assault. It is not the defence of the appellant that the deceased was the aggressor,” observed a Bench of Justice Abhay S Oka and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan.
“The deceased had come to the spot only to resolve the fight among the family members of the appellant. Hence, it cannot be said that there was a sudden and grave provocation due to any act on the part of the deceased. The appellant himself started the dispute by questioning the PW-4 on non-payment of the electricity bill. Therefore, the appellant's case will not fall under Exception 1 or Exception 4 of Section 300 of the IPC,” it further held.
The case revolved around a family dispute that turned violent, resulting in the death of Muthu, the father-in-law of Shanmugasekar's brother, Kesavan. The incident occurred on September 28, 2016, when Shanmugasekar confronted his brother Kesavan over unpaid electricity bills for their shared residence. The altercation escalated, involving other family members, and eventually led to the intervention of Muthu and his son-in-law, Kalidoss. Amidst the quarrel, Shanmugasekar and his father, Kaari, allegedly returned with billhooks and attacked Muthu, causing fatal injuries.
The prosecution relied on the testimonies of eye-witnesses, including Kalidoss, Sathyamoorthi, Govindammal, Kesavan, Saravanapriya, and Chandrashekar. The Trial Court convicted Shanmugasekar under Sections 294(b) and 302 of the IPC, while acquitting the other accused, except for Kaari, who was convicted under Sections 294(b) and 324.
Shanmugasekar appealed against his conviction, arguing that the prosecution had not proven his guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that, at most, the offence committed would be punishable under Section 304 (Part II) of the IPC. However, the Supreme Court, after carefully examining the evidence, found no reason to interfere with the lower courts' decisions. The Court observed that Shanmugasekar's act of bringing a billhook from his home indicated his intention to cause bodily harm. The deceased, Muthu, had only intervened to resolve the family dispute and was not the aggressor.
“The witnesses are consistent on the fact that the appellant assaulted the deceased on his head by using Aruval. As the eyewitnesses are related to the deceased, we have closely scrutinised their evidence. We find no material contradictions and omissions brought on record in their cross-examination,” the Top Court observed in the judgement.
Therefore the apex court found no reason to interfere with the view taken by the courts that the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to stay up to date on our product, events featured blog, special offer and all of the exciting things that take place here at Legitquest.
Add a Comment