15/03/2020 Delivery | Westlaw India

Westlaw India Delivery Summary

Request made by : IP   USER

Request made on: Sunday, 15 March, 2020 at 14:19 IST
   
Client ID: inapu-1
Content Type: Legislation
Title : A. Steepen v State, Represented by Inspector of
Police, Chennai
Delivery selection: Current Document
Number of documents delivered: 1

© 2020 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

15/03/2020 Delivery | Westlaw India Page  2

A. Steepen v State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Chennai

Madras High Court

16 March 2016

Case Analysis

Bench S. NAGAMUTHU, Jaichandren

Where Reported 2016 Indlaw MAD 3704; 2017 ACJ 672; 2016 (2) MLJ(Crl) 513

Case Digest Subject: Criminal

Keywords: Presumption, Forensic, Suicide, Indian Evidence Act,

1872, Tamil Nadu, Treatment, Reasonable Doubt, Doctor, Dead
Body, Prosecutor, Public Prosecutor, Handwriting, Indian Penal
Code, 1860, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Plea

Summary: Criminal - Indian Penal Code, 1860, ss. 302, 309, 84,
299 - Conviction - Challenged - Trial Court convicted Accused and
sentenced for offence u/ss.302, 309 of IPC - Hence, instant appeal
- Whether, conviction order passed against Accused was justified.

Held, on date of occurrence, Accused came to house of father in

law of Accused with his son (deceased), entered into room, bolted
it from inside. Doctor, opined that death of deceased, due to
poison, cannot be ruled out. As per Forensic expert, there was no
poison detected in any of internal organs of deceased. Death was
caused by this Accused by administering some kind of poison,
though precisely, nature of poison could not be detected. It is not
every homicide which is made punishable under IPC. It is only
culpable homicide which is punishable. Culpability as defined u/s.
299 of IPC is to be established by prosecution. Father in law of
Accused, stated that from date of accident in which wife of
Accused was killed, Accused was highly depressed and he was not
in his normal sense. Doctor has stated that said depression in
medical terms in known as ‘Major depressive disorder’. Cognitive
faculty of Accused was not under his control and he was not
conscious of consequences of his act. Thus, Accused was suffering
from unsoundness of mind at time of occurrence in terms of s. 84
of IPC and act of Accused in causing death of his son as well as in
attempting to commit suicide, would not make out any offence,
either u/s. 302 of IPC or s. 309 of IPC. Thus, Accused is entitled
for acquittal. Appeal allowed.

© 2019 Thomson Reuters South Asia Private Limited

15/03/2020 Delivery | Westlaw India Page  3

This database contains editorial enhancements that are not a part of the original material. The database may also have mistakes or omissions. Users are requested to verify the contents with the
relevant original text(s) such as, the certified copy of the judgment, Government Gazettes, etc. Thomson Reuters bears no liability whatsoever for the adequacy, accuracy, satisfactory quality or
suitability of the content.