IMPORTANT POINT
The distinction between murder and culpable homicide hinges on the accused's intention or knowledge regarding the fatal injury, with the absence of premeditation and the nature of the confrontation influencing the charge.

JUDGMENT :

(Raja Vijayaraghavan, J.)

The above appeal has been preferred by the sole accused in S.C.No. 630 of 2011 on the file of the Court of Session, Thalassery. In the above case, the appellant stood indicted for having committed the offence punishable under Sections 447 and 302 of the IPC.

2. Short facts:

Pulikkal Kunjumon @ Thankappan, his wife Smt. Remani, and their two boys, aged 15 and 12 years respectively, were residents of a place called Pookundu within the limits of Kannur District. The appellant was their neighbor. They had a cordial relationship until about a month prior to October 12, 2008, the day on which the fateful incident that led to the death of Thankappan took place. The prosecution alleges that news doing the rounds in the locality reached the appellant, claiming that Thankappan had tried to molest his wife. This created a tremendous amount of ill feelings in the minds of the accused towards Thankappan. The prosecution further alleges that on October 12, 2008, at about 10:45 p.m., the accused trespassed into the front yard of the deceased's house, bearing Door No. II/446 of Kelakam Panchayat. He started abusing Thankappan and exhorted him to come out. Thankappan came out and told the accused that they should settle the issue the next morning and asked him to go back to his house. The accused is alleged to have pulled the deceased out to the tar road lying east-west right outside the house and pushed him down. While the deceased was lying face up, the accused is alleged to have sat on his legs, taken a rubber tapper’s knife from his hip, and inflicted a stab injury on the outer aspect of the left thigh, cutting the femoral vein. Though the injured was rushed to the hospital, he breathed his last.

3. Registration of the crime and investigation:

Thomas (PW1), a neighbour, went to the Police Station on 13.10.2008 at 7.30 a.m. and lodged the FI Statement which was recorded by PW12, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kelakam Police Station. On the same day itself, the Circle Inspector of Police (PW13) took up the investigation. He conducted the inquest (Ext.P10) over the dead body at 10.30 a.m., and on 13.10.2008, he went to the scene of occurrence and prepared scene mahazar (Ext.P4). The accused was arrested at 10.10 p.m. on 13.10.2008. On the basis of the disclosure statement given by the accused, the true extract of which was marked as Ext.P12, the weapon of offence (MO1 - Rubber Tapper’s knife) and the lungi (MO4) and shirt (MO5) worn by the accused were seized. He concluded the investigation and laid the final report before court.

4. Proceedings before the Court:

After complying with the procedure, the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Koothuparamba, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Thalassery. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 447 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. Evidence tendered during trial:

The prosecution examined PWs 1 to 13 to prove its case. Exts.P1 to P18 documents were exhibited and marked. MOs 1 to 5 were produced and identified. After the close of the prosecution evidence, the incriminating materials arising out of the prosecution evidence were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. He denied all the incriminating circumstances brought against him and maintained his innocence. According to him, he was falsely implicated by the wife and children of the deceased as they felt that their family suffered ignominy owing to the allegations of molesty levelled by the wife of the accused against him. On finding that the accused could not be acquitted under Section 232 of the Cr.P.C., he was called upon to enter upon his defence. No defence of evidence was adduced on his side.

6. Findings of the learned Sessions Judge:

a) The evidence of PWs 2 and 3, the wife and son of the deceased, are natural witnesses and their presence throughout the incident was fou