JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gobichettipalayam in S.C.No.30 of 2015 dated 03.02.2016 and allow this appeal.)

1. The matter is heard through “Video Conference”.

2. Convicted sole accused is the appellant herein.

3. The case of the prosecution is that

3(a). the deceased-Ramasamy is the father-in-law of P.W.2/Chitra. P.W.1 is the husband of P.W.2. The deceased came to know that the accused passing rumour as if, he is having intimated relationship with P.W.2.

3(b). on 21.04.2013, at about 9.00 pm, while the deceased and his son P.W.1 and his wife P.W.2 and P.W.3 brother of P.W.1 was standing near the house, the accused went through the same thing and the deceased had questioned as to why he falsely generating rumour as if, P.W.2 is having illicit relationship with him and thereby, touching upon the chastity of P.W.2, resulted in pull and push, wherein, the accused said to have prevented and he forcibly pushed the deceased and he fell down and sustained injuries on head, neck, forehead and left knee.

3(c) While he was taking treatment in the hospital, Ex.P12/complaint was registered by P.W.14/Sub Inspector of Police. Since his condition is worsened, he was recommended to nearby district hospital, on that day, he was found to be struggling. Again, he was brought to the same hospital and there he was declared dead and hence, under Ex.P13/FIR, Section was altered under Ex.P16, whereby, 302 of IPC was included in the charge sheet and after investigation, final report has been filed. The case has been taken on file as S.C.No.30/2015.

4. During trial, on the prosecution side, P.W.1 to P.W.15 were examined and Exs.P1 to P.18 were marked. Further, M.O.1 to M.O.4 were also marked.

5. The trial Court, based upon the evidence, came to the conclusion that the act of the accused on the body of deceased does not prosecute the offence under Section 302 of IPC. However, framed the charges under Section 304(ii) IPC and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment.

6. The sum and substance of the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that non-examination of wife of the deceased whose name is found in the FIR is entered in the prosecution and no independent witness was examined to prove the case of the prosecution. Since, P.W.5/Gopal and P.W.10/Nandhakumar are independent witnesses have turned hostile. Furthermore, there is a delay in registering the FIR.

6(a). The third contention of the learned counsel is under Ex.P6/Post-mortem Report, the cause of death is shown as shock sustained by the deceased due to injuries. In the absence of any motive or intention, if at all under Section 324 of IPC.

7. Heard, the learned Public Prosecutor.

8. After perusing the oral evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.15 and documentary evidence and submission of both counsels, the son of the deceased is examined as P.W.1 and his wife is examined as P.W.2. The brother of P.W.1 is P.W.3 and neighbour is examined as P.W.4. P.W.5/Gopal and P.W.10/Nandakumar are projected as independent witnesses said to have seen the occurrence are turned hostile. Ex.P4/Accident register has deposed the nature of injury found on the injured at the time of his admission and P.W.14 is the Sub Inspector of Police. Ex.P12 is the complaint given by deceased Ramasamy. The deceased died due to the injuries and the statement was recorded at 2.20 am and he died at 3.30 pm in the hospital.

9. The post-mortem was conducted by P.W.12/Dr.Kalyani and Exs.P6, P7 and P8 along with forensic report, she has stated that the cause of the death is not due to injuries and hence, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that it is a homicidal violence and died due to the injuries and the trial Court has rightly held that in the absence of any motive or intention or preplanned to attack the deceased, it is happened in a sudden quarrel and came to the conclusion th