Causing unintentional death is not murder.

Per M.E.N. PATRUDU, J.

S.Jayakumar, an experienced advocate appearing as Amicus Curiae advanced his enlightening arguments which are convincing and interesting on behalf of the appellant. We would like to place on record our appreciation for his effort to secure acquittal for the said accused. However, he is not successful to get full benefit for the crime alleged to have been committed by the appellant.

2.00 He has canvassed acquittal for the appellant or in the alternative for reduction of sentence. A true advocacy.

3:00. The facts leading to conviction of the appellant by the learned Principal Sessions Judge in S.C.No.367 of 2002 are as follows:

3:01. The deceased is the father of the appellant. P.W.1 is his sister and P.W.2 is his mother. The unfortunate incident occurred in the early hours at about 4.00 a.m on 10.1.2000. The place of offence is their house. All of them are living together. There is no dispute about it.

3:02. The motive for the incident is that the appellant is addicted to drinks and spending money and not taking care of the family and on the other hand often insisting for money from the deceased who is the retired Office Assistant aged about 78 years. The appellant is a painter having his own earnings, yet he is demanding money from the deceased, his father, to consume liquor. The deceased is not able to meet the demand as he is retired. The appellant is angry. On 9.1.2000, at about 10 or 11 p.m. there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased in the house. The appellant came in a drunkard mood, quarrelled with the deceased and demanded money. P.W.2, the mother of the appellant, intervened and separated them. This incident is few months prior to the main incident.

3:03. The appellant went to the open terrace of the house and slept. The deceased was sleeping in the veranda of his house. P.W.1 and P.W.2 slept inside the house. While so, at 4.00 a.m., they heard the noise of the deceased and on hearing they rushed to the spot, wherein they found that the appellant was beating the deceased and pushed the deceased.

3:04. The specific evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is that the appellant pushed the deceased resulting the deceased sustaining injuries and immediately the appellant fled away from the scene of occurrence. The deceased sustained head injury resulting his death. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged and police have registered a case, commenced investigation and completed the same.

4.00. After examining eleven witnesses and perused exhibits P.1 to P.11 and five material objects were seized and they are marked as M.Os.1 to 9, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.

5:00. The learned counsel for the appellant challenged the conviction and sentence on the following grounds.

6.00. There is no motive for the appellant to kill his father. It is pointed out that the appellant himself is an earning member and from the evidence of P.W.2 it is clear that the accused was earning substantial amount and hence there is no need for him to demand for further amount from the deceased.

7.00. We do not find any force in the said argument, as it depends upon the individual to demand money, despite the fact that he himself being an earning member. In the instant case, the record discloses that the accused was addicted with a bad habit of consuming liquor. The accused is demanding money from the deceased. There is a clear evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 that the appellant is in the habit of demanding money from the deceased and the deceased was unable to give money, being the retired employee, we do not find any reason to discard the evidence of P.Ws. 1. and 2, who are sister and mother of accused.

8.00. When there is a direct evidence with regard to the commission of offence, motive is more or less academic. Hence, we do not find any force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant on motive.

9.00. It is next contende