The main legal point established in the judgment is that the relationship of a witness to the deceased does not automatically affect their credibility, and evidence should not be discarded solely on the ground of being partisan or interested. The judgment also emphasizes the application of Exception 1 to Section 300, IPC in cases involving provocation and loss of self-control.

P.D. Dinakaran, J.

Aggrieved by the conviction under Sections 302 and 506(ii), ItPC and sentence to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.2,500/-and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.1,000/-respectively imposed on him by the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in S.C.No.1 of 2006, the accused has preferred the above appeal.

2. The allegation in the charges framed against the accused is that

.(a) on 13. 2005 at about 12.30 pm, the accused attacked one Sourrirajan on his neck with aruval, resulting in instantaneous death, due to previous enmity, in the place belonging to one Liyakath Ali situated at western side of Enangudi Road, Pakkam Kottur Village and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 302, IPC; and

.(b) in furtherance of the said occurrence, when one Thiyagarajan, son of the deceased Sourrirajan, was shouting at him not to attack, he threatened him that he would also do away with him and thereby he committed an offence punishable under Section 506(ii), IPC.

3. The case of the prosecution, as discerned from the evidence of prosecution witnesses, is as follows:

(a) P.W.1, son of the deceased, deposed that he knew the accused who was residing 3 kms away from his place. On the date of occurrence, at about 8 am, the deceased went to the agricultural field. At about 10 am, he went to the field taking lunch for the deceased. At that time, the deceased was cleaning the thresh floor. At about 11 am, the accused brought about 10/12 goats through their field, which was resisted by the deceased since standing crops were there. The accused scolded the deceased with filthy words, to which, the deceased reacted and shouted against him. In the altercation, the accused rebuked the deceased by saying that he would do away with him and the deceased countered that he would also do the same. Thereafter, the accused left the place with his goats. At about 12/12.30 pm, the accused came to the place of occurrence in a bicycle, where the deceased was doing cleaning work. At that time, four/five fields away from the place of occurrence, he was working. On hearing some noise, he went to the place of occurrence where he saw the accused taking the aruval, M.O.1 and immediately, he shouted against the accused not to cut the deceased. But, the accused cut the deceased on the left side of the neck. At once, the deceased fell down and the accused threatened the people who were working there that he would do away with them if they come near to him. At that time, P.Ws.2 to 6 were working there. P.W.6, who was working at a distance of 10 feet, swooned on seeing the occurrence. After ten minutes, he went to his residence, which was 2 kms away from the place of occurrence, in the bicycle. After informing about the incident to his mother, brother and relatives, he went to the Police Station at about 15 kms and reached there at about 3/3.15 pm. He lodged a complaint, Ex.P1 to P.W.15. Thereafter, he left in his friends motor cycle to the place of occurrence where the Police came at about 4 pm and enquired him and others.

.(b) P.W.2, an eye witness, who was working in the field of Liyakat Ali where the .occurrence took place, deposed that he knew P.W.1 and the accused and even though he was working in the field at the time of occurrence, which was four/five fields away from the place of occurrence, he was not aware as to how the deceased was done to death. Hence, he was treated as hostile witness.

.(c) P.W.3, another eye witness, deposed that he knew the deceased, P.W.1 and P.W.2 and on the date of occurrence, he was drying the crops in the road; at about 12 noon, on hearing the noise and seeing the people gathering at the place of occurrence, he also went and saw the deceased lying dead with blood; on seeing the deceased, he fainted; he had not seen the accused earlier or on the date of occurrence; and he was not aware about who murdered the deceased. Hence, he was also treated as hostile