IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the provisions of Section 299 and Section 320 of the IPC to determine the nature of the offence committed by the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.

The sole accused in S.C. No.344 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Pala is the appellant in this appeal. He stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life.

2. The occurrence which is the subject matter of the case took place on 23.09.2014. One Soman, who is a close relative of the appellant died in the occurrence. Soman was running a tea shop on the side of M.C. Road at Puthuveli. At about 8.30 p.m on the date of occurrence, while Soman was proceeding to the shop of one Thomas located on the opposite side of the road at a distance of about 20 metres away from his shop, he was hit on his back by an auto rickshaw driven by the appellant and Soman succumbed to the injuries sustained on account of the fall. The accusation in the case is that on account of the enmity the appellant had towards the deceased for opposing openly his way of living and for preventing other relatives of the appellant from helping him from the troubles in which he is entangled, the appellant hit down the deceased with the intention of causing his death.

3. As the appellant denied the charge framed against him by the Court of Session when committed for trial, the prosecution let in oral as also documentary evidence to prove the charge. The Court of Session, thereupon, on an appraisal of the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved by the decision of the Court of Session and hence, this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant did not attack seriously the finding rendered by the Court of Session that the death of the victim was due to the injuries sustained by him on account of the hit of the autorickshaw driven by the appellant. Instead, it was contended by the learned counsel that merely on account of the said fact, it cannot be said that it is a case of murder. According to the learned counsel, the evidence on record would only indicate that it was a case of accident. Per contra, the learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the evidence on record would demonstrate that the appellant had deliberately hit down the deceased and therefore, it is a case of murder.

6. The points that arise for consideration are (i) whether the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had deliberately hit down the deceased using the auto rickshaw driven by him and (ii) if so, what is the offence committed by the appellant.

7. Point (i): PW1 is the son of the deceased. PW1 is not an eyewitness to the occurrence. It was on the information furnished by PW1 that the case was registered. PW1 deposed the said fact in his evidence. In addition, PW1 also deposed that the appellant who is a relative of the deceased was not in good terms with the deceased as the latter refused to be a surety for the appellant in a few criminal cases in which the appellant was involved. It was also deposed by PW1 that the deceased had also restrained the brothers of PW1 from helping the appellant for the said purpose. PW2 is Thomas who is running the provision store on the opposite side of the shop of the deceased. PW2 deposed that on the relevant day, while he was standing outside his shop, he saw the deceased coming from south to north through the western side of the road towards his shop and that while so, the appellant who was coming from north in the autorickshaw, turned around the autorickshaw in front of the shop of the deceased after passing the deceased and hit the auto rickshaw on his back. PW2 also deposed that the deceased fell down on account of the impact of the hit and when he made a noise, a few persons who were sitting then in the tea shop of the deceased rushed to the scene and took the deceased to the hospital. PW2 also deposed that there were frequent quarrels between the appellant and