The main legal point established is that the court considered the circumstances of sudden provocation and lack of premeditation in the accused's act, leading to the modification of the conviction from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304(I) of the Indian Penal Code.

(Judgment was delivered by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)

1. This appeal challenges the judgment dated 27.4.2007 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C. No.29 of 2007, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:

(i) P.W.1 is the daughter of the deceased Sasikala They were living in the upstairs portion bearing Door No.54th Cross Street, Thiruvalluvar Nagar, Thiruvanmiyur, Chennai. The accused was living with his wife in the downstairs. The accused and his wife had often quarrelled and the wife of the accused used to leave the matrimonial home often. The accused suspected that the deceased and her daughter were responsible for the act of his wife.

(ii) On the date of occurrence i.e. 19.11.2006 at about 2.45 p.m., P.W.1 came from outside. When she was about to go to upstairs, she was intervened by the accused. The accused told her that herself and her mother were responsible for his wife going from the matrimonial house. P.W.1 replied in the negative. When she went to upstairs, she informed the same to her mother. Immediately, the deceased accompanied with P.W.1 came to downstairs and questioned the accused. There was a wordy altercation. Immediately, he got into the house, took M.O.1 iron pipe and attacked the deceased on her head and thereafter, she fell down. Not satisfied with the first blow, he gave his blows on two more places. This was witnessed by P.W.2 who was carrying on a laundry shop in the opposite side, who also questioned him. This was also witnessed by P.W.3, who was coming across the street. The accused/appellant ran away from the place of occurrence.

(iii) P.W.1 gave complaint Ex.P1 to the respondent-police. P.W.10 Sub Inspector of Police, who received the complaint Ex.P1, on the strength of the same, registered a case in Crime No.1013 of 2006 for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. First Information Report Ex.P11 was despatched to the Court. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Government Royapettah Hospital. P.W.5 Doctor gave treatment to her and the Accident Register is marked as Ex.P3. Despite treatment, she died at 5.45 p.m. The case was altered to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and amended First Information Report Ex.P13 was despatched to the Court.

(iv) P.W.10 Investigating Officer took up investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared Observation Mahazar Ex.P7 in the presence of witnesses and Rough Sketch Ex.P12. He also seized blood stained mosaic M.O.2 and ordinary mosaic M.O.3 in the presence of witnesses under the cover of mahazar Ex.P8. He also conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P14. Thereafter, the body was sent for post-mortem under requisition letter Ex.P4.

(v) P.W.6 Doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body and issued post mortem Certificate Ex.P5 and opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to head injury. Pending investigation, the accused was arrested on 20.11.2006. He came forward to give confession statement voluntarily and the same is recorded in the presence of witnesses and admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P9. Pursuant to the confession statement, he also produced M.O.1 iron pipe and the same was recovered under the cover of mahazar. On completion of investigation, final report is filed. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessary charges were framed against the accused.

3. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and relied on 14 documents and also relied on M.Os.1 to 7. On completion of examination of witnesses on the side of the prosecuti