The court established that a homicide can be classified as culpable homicide not amounting to murder if committed under grave and sudden provocation, emphasizing the importance of context and the accused's state of mind at the time of the act.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal by the convicted accused is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 18/2/2017 passed in SC No.5014/2016 by the IV Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Madhugiri, wherein the accused is sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also payment of fine Rs.10, 000.00 and in default to payment of fine, he shall undergo simple imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC.

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as under: The accused is the husband of deceased Bhagyamma and was residing in a rented house belonging to CW.23 and he was quarreling with her in respect of money matter and he wanted to take her away from the house and on 8/3/2011 at about 12.00 noon, the accused picked up a quarrel with the deceased in respect of money matter and with an intention to kill the deceased, he poured kerosene over her and lit fire and thereby, killed her. Hence, the father of the deceased Bhagyamma, i.e., PW.2 lodged a complaint before the respondent police as per Ex.P1 and the same was registered in Crime No.29/2011 dtd. 8/3/2011 for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC against the accused. Based on the said complaint, the respondent police investigated the matter and thereafter, arrested the accused and recorded his voluntary statement and collected other materials and documents and also recorded the statement of all the witnesses and the Investigation Officer laid the charge sheet against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC, before the Committal Court.

3. On committal of this case to the Sessions Court, the learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC and read over the same to accused. However, the accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

4. In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution in total examined 23 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.23 so also got marked 23 documents as Ex.P.1 to P.23 and 6 material objects i.e., MO.1 to MO.6. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Sessions Judge read over the incriminating portion of the evidence of witnesses to the accused under the provisions of Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C and the accused denied the same. However, the accused did not choose to examine any witness on his favour and also not produced any documents. The defence of the accused is one of total denial and that of false implication.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the defence so also the Public Prosecutor and after assessment of the oral and documentary evidence placed, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of IPC, which is under challenge in this appeal.

6. We have heard Sri.Chethan, learned counsel for the appellant/accused and Sri.Shankar, HCGP for State.

7. Sri. Chethan, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently contended that, the judgment under appeal suffers from perversity and illegality and the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused without properly appreciating the evidence available on record which caused great miscarriage of justice to the appellant/accused.

8. He would further contend that, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused based on assumption and presumption without properly appreciating the evidence available on record. As such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

9. The learned counsel would further contended that, the prosecution failed to prove the very homicidal death of the deceased, since the doctor who conducted the post mortem of the deceased as per Ex.P11, though opined that the cause of death is due to shock as a result of burn injuries, but the same was caused accidentally. Even the accused also sustained severe injuries and those injuries are reflected in Ex.P12 i.e., Wound certificate, the accused sustained first degree superficial deep burn over his both forearm and thereby, it is clearly that, the accused made hi