T. Mathivanan, J.

1. The Judgment and the order of conviction, dated 29.12.2010, sentencing the appellant/accused to suffer the imprisonment of life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer the rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months and made in S.C.No.15 of 2010, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Periyakulam are under challenge in this appeal.

2. The appellant/accused had been facing two charges viz., 354 and 302 I.P.C., He was acquitted of the charge under Section 354 I.P.C., and found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C., convicted and sentenced as aforestated.

3. The appellant/accused is a married man. At the time of commission of crime i.e., as on 30.04.2009, he was aged about 28 years. His wife was having a male child in her arm. An ordinary man of prudence can differentiate between right and wrong. Knowing fully well that he was doing wrong, the appellant/accused has now been trapped into, because of his lustful desire, that too on a 16 years old girl, who is the deceased herein, he has got stuck into a stigma i.e. "murderer".

4. The deceased Rajeswari was aged about only 16 years, when she was cut to