Conviction of accused altered to one under section 304 Part I instead of section 302 I.P.C.

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM, J.

Challenging the conviction imposed under Section 302 IPC by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in S.C.No.193 of 1996, Ramalingam, the appellant/accused, has filed this appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(a) The appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased Dhanalakshmi. Twenty years ago, they got married. Four children were born out of the wedlock. Seven years prior to the occurrence, they were living in Pondicherry. At that time, the deceased Dhanalakshmi ran away with one Mani along with her second child. When the accused brought her back home, he shifted their residence to Ambattur. Again two years prior to the incident, the deceased ran away with another man, namely, Pandian. Then, the parents of the deceased intervened and made a compromise between the accused and the deceased and brought her back to her husband. Thereafter, the accused along with his wife and children came to Kolappakkam village and was residing there.

(b) On 01.04.1996, at about 07.00 a.m., P.W.3.Vaidyanathan went to the house of P.W.5 Rathinam to get an umbrella from P.W.5. At that time, P.W.3 was talking with the deceased Dhanalakshmi. On seeing that, the accused suspected that the deceased had illicit intimacy with P.W.3. Therefore, the accused beat P.W.3. P.W.3 complained it to the other witnesses. Thereafter, the other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.3 and 5 and one Ganappan went to the house of the accused and beat him. P.W.2 Maistry came there; pacified both the parties and separated them. The deceased requested P.W.2 to take her to his house, as she is afraid of the accused. Therefore, P.W.2 took the deceased and the accused along with children to his house at Nedungundram.

(c) On the next day to the day of occurrence, namely, 02.04.1996, the accused left for work and asked the deceased also to come along with him. P.W.2 told him that he alone should go for work, leaving the deceased in the house itself. But, the accused requested him to send the deceased along with him so that both can do the work and accordingly, P.W.2 allowed both the accused and the deceased to go for work, since the children were available in the house. On the way to the working field, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. When the accused questioned the deceased as to why she arranged persons to beat him on the earlier day, the deceased retaliated by saying that she would again arrange the persons to kill him once for all on the same night. Getting angry over this, the accused pushed her aside on the ground. He kept his both the legs on her hands and put a stone on her chest. With the same stone, he stabbed her on the abdomen, as a result of which the deceased died. Then, the accused took the dead body of the deceased and put in on the road side. He went to the house of P.W.1 V.A.O. at Kolamuthoor and gave a statement, giving extra-judicial confession. P.W.1 reduced the same into writing and obtained the signature from the accused. The statement is Ex.P-1. Then, he went to the scene of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased with injuries. Thereafter, he took the accused to the police station; prepared a report Ex.P-2 and produced the same in the police station. The accused was also produced before P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police.

(d) On receipt of Exs.P-1 and P-2, P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case for the offence under Section 302 IPC and prepared the printed F.I.R.Ex.P-8.

(e) On receiving the message, P.W.17, Inspector of Police, went to Otteri police station and again obtained a confessional statement from the accused, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-9. Then, the police party was taken by the accused to the scene of occurrence and the dead body was identified, P.W.17 prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch; identified the stone M.O.1, with which the accused caused injuries on the body of the deceased and recovered the same. He conducted