Culpable Homicide of wife is not murder.

The appellant is the first accused and the second accused is the father of the appellant. Initially a case was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the trial of the case was taken up under Section 302 IPC against both the accused. On conclusion of the trial, the second accused has been acquitted and the appellant alone has been convicted for an offence punishable under Sections 304 (I) and 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 10 years and one year together with a fine of Rs.3,000/- and Rs.2,000/- respectively, containing a default sentence. Aggrieved against that, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

.2. The deceased is the wife of the appellant. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 4. 1989 at about 10.00 p.m. Three years prior to the date of occurrence, the marriage between the appellant and the accused is alleged to have taken place. After the marriage, there were frequent quarrels between the appellant and the deceased. Panchayats were convened and the deceased was requested to go with the appellant. PW1, who is the father of the deceased, visited the scene of occurrence viz., the house of the appellant, after hearing the death of the deceased on 02.04.1989. At that time, the deceased was found lying dead inside the house and PW1 did not find any external injuries. But, there was froth oozing out from her mouth. Thereafter, PW1 suspecting foul play gave a report to the police.

3. PW9, the Sub Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station, received the complaint on 02.04.1989 at 11.00 p.m and registered a case in Crime No.114/1989 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sent Ex.P.15 (copy of the FIR) to the Revenue Divisional Officer and a requisition to conduct enquiry, since the death of the deceased took place within three years after the marriage.

4. P.W.7 the RDO on receipt of the requisition from P.W.9, reached the scene of occurrence on 03.04.1989 and conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and examined the witnesses present. Ex.P-13 is the Inquest Report and Ex.P-14 is the Report of the RDO.

5. PW-10 the Inspector of Police, Mecheri Police Station took up the investigation on 4. 1989 and sent a requisition for conducting post mortem. He altered the offence from 174 Cr.P.C., to Section 302 r/w 201 IPC after receiving opinion from the post mortem Doctor and sent Ex.P.16 (express report). On 4. 1989, PW10 visited the scene of occurrence and prepared a rough sketch (Ex.P.17). The accused was produced before him on the same day and he gave a confession statement, which is marked as Ex.P.4. In pursuance of such statement, the accused produced MO1 (Mathu) a wooden stick with head portion and the same was recovered under Ex.P.5 (mahazar). The accused was remanded to judicial custody on the next day. Subsequently, investigation was taken up by PW 11 and he filed a final report, after examining the witnesses, on 210. 1995 for an offence under Section 302 r/w 201 IPC.

.6. PW1 in his evidence has stated that, there used to be quarrel between the appellant and the deceased frequently and on the advise of the panchayatars and after receiving an undertaking from the appellant, the deceased was sent back to her matrimonial home. On the date of occurrence, on receipt of the intimation that his daughter had committed suicide by consuming poison, PW1 went to her house. The accused alleged to have stated that she consumed poison on her own. Thereafter, suspecting some foul play, a report (Ex.P.1) was given to the police. He has further stated that he was examined by the police during investigation and by the Revenue Divisional officer.

7. PW2 is the mother of the appellant. She has been examined by the prosecution to substantiate the motive aspect of the prosecution that there was a quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. Since, she did not support the case of the prosecution, she was treated hostile. PW3 is the s