IMPORTANT POINT
When the accused had given one blow with a pair of scissors on the vital part of the body of deceased, it would be reasonable to infer that he had knowledge that any injury with the pair of scissors on the vital part would cause death though he may not haue intended to commit the murder and therefore, his conviction altered from Section 302 IPC to one u/s 304 Part I! of the IPC.

JUDGMENT

S.P. Kurdukar, J.-This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant accused impinging the Judgment and order of the High Court of Kerala dated January 19, 1993, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life for committing the murder of Madhavan. The trial court at the conclusion of the trial found the appellant not guilty and acquitted him. The State of Kerala filed the appeal to the High Court and the said criminal appeal was allowed by the High Court vide its impugned judgment.

2. Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under :

The incident in question took place at about 8.00 p.m. on May 10, 1988 at Kattapunna. On this day, a "Thaiyyam" (a village ballet) was arranged by Madhavan in the evening and for that purpose, he needed a petromax which was available in the shop of the appellant. Madhavan had gone to the shop of the appellant and requested him to give a lighted petromax. The appellant refused to oblige. Earlier in the day, brother of Madhavan had also gone to the shop of the appellant and requested him to give him two benches to celebrate the said festival. When Madhavan had gone to the shop of the appellant with a request to give him a lighted petromax and on the latter s refusal, there were exchange of words which was followed by a scuffle. Chalil Krishnan (PW 1) who happened to be in the shop intervened and separated them. A. Narayanan (PW 6) who runs a tea shop near the shop of the accused also reached the place of incident and held Madhavan with a view to take him away. The appellant who was then sitting on a stool picked up a pair of scissors (M.O. 2) lying on the table in front of him and caused a stab injury on the right side of the chest of Madhavan. The appellant again tried to inflict one more blow which landed on the right cheek of Madhavan who thereafter fell down on the ground.

3. A lorry was hired to carry Madhavan to the hospital but on the way it broke down. A car was then procured in which Madhavan while being carried to the hospital, succumbed to his injuries. Chalil Krishnan (PW 1) then proceeded to Kasaragod police station and made a report to the head constable on duty (PW 13). The case was then transferred to Bakel police station in whose jurisdiction the incident had taken place. The First Information Report (Ex.P 11) came to be recorded at 9.00 p.m. which was forwarded to the Magistrate at about 10.00 p.m. After holding the inquest on the dead body of Madhavan, it was forwarded to the civil hospital for post mortem examination. After completing the necessary investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

4. The appellant denied the accusations levelled against him and pleaded that he is innocent. He further pleaded that Madhavan was the aggressor and infact in that scuffle, at the instance of Madhavan he sustained an injury on his head. He, therefore, pleaded that he had committed no offence and he be acquitted.

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused examined as many as six witnesses of facts who were P.W. 1 to P.W. 6. In addition to this ocular evidence, the prosecution examined Dr. George Mathew (PW 10) to prove the post mortem examination report and the cause of death. Formal witnesses to prove various panchnamas were also examined by the prosecution.

6. Learned Sessions Judge after the conclusion of the trial by his judgment and order dated May 9,1989, found the accused not guilty and consequently passed the order of acquittal. The State of Kerala preferred the criminal appeal to the High Court which was allowed and the appellant stood convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is this judgment and order of the High Court which is sought to be challenged in this criminal appeal.

7. We have gone through the learned judgments of the courts below very carefully. We are also conscious of the fact that the trial court had acquitte