The central legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of intention to cause death influenced the court's decision to alter the appellant's conviction from Section 302 to Section 304(II) of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal filed by the appellant-Krishnamurthy (Original Accused No. 2) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against the judgment and order dated 27.10.2009 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 2008, whereby the High Court had dismissed the appeal of the present appellant and confirmed the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against him by the Sessions Court, Cuddalore (hereinafter referred to as the “Sessions Court”) in Sessions Case No. 101 of 2007.

2. Initially, three accused named-Govindaraj, Krishnamurthy and Selvaraj were charged and tried before the Sessions Court, which after appreciating the evidence on record convicted and sentenced the accused no. 1-Govindaraj for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324 and 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC convicted and sentenced the accused no. 2-Krishnamurthy for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and convicted and sentenced the accused no. 3-Selvaraj for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The High Court in the appeal preferred by all the three accused, vide the impugned judgment and order dismissed the appeal of accused no. 2 i.e. the present appellant and modified the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of accused no. 1 by convicting him for the offence under Sections 324 and 294(b) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo two years of rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 324 of IPC, and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for the offence under Section 294(b) of IPC. The High Court also modified the judgment and order of conviction and sentence of accused no. 3, by convicting him for the offence under Section 323 of IPC alone and directing him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the said offence.

3. The judgment and order passed by the High Court qua the accused nos. 1 and 3 have neither been challenged by them, nor the State has preferred any appeal against the impugned judgment acquitting the accused nos. 1 and 3 for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of IPC. The present appeal has been filed only by the accused no. 2 challenging the impugned judgment convicting him for the offence under Section 302 and sentencing him to the life imprisonment.

4. The case of the prosecution in nutshell before the trial was that the deceased-Samidurai and the accused were the neighbours in the village-Elavathadi. Some quarrel had taken place between accused no. 1 and the wife and the son of the deceased in respect of a missing goat belonging to the deceased Samidurai. In the said quarrel on 13.03.2006, accused no. 1-Govindaraj assaulted the son of the deceased Shanmugaperumal using an iron rod on his hands and biting him on his cheek. On 14.03.2006 at about 2.00 a.m. all the three accused, with the intent to assault the deceased and his family members, armed with an iron pipe and wooden log, came to the house of the deceased by hurling abusive filths against the family members of the deceased. The deceased came out of his house and asked the accused as to why they were shouting at such an odd hour. By that time, the accused no. 2-Krishnamurthy assaulted Samidurai on his head with a wooden log and pushed him down, while the first accused-Govindaraj assaulted Samidurai who was lying on the ground using an iron pipe on his chest and the third accused-Selvaraj also assaulted Samidurai by a wooden log on the right side of his chest. When the family members of Samidurai came to rescue him, all the accused threatened them with dire consequences and ran away from the place. The said Samidurai succumbed to injuries and died at about 04.15 p.m. on 14.03.2006. On the complaint having been lodged by PW-1, son of the deceased, the investigation was carried out and the charge-sheet was filed against all the three accused.

5. The learned Advocate Mr. Senthil Jagadeesan appearing for the appellant-accused no. 2 drawing the attention of the Court to the observations