The central legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between culpable homicide and murder, based on the absence of premeditation, undue advantage, or cruel behavior by the accused.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District in S.C.No.172 of 2017 dated 05.04.2019.)

1. Aggrieved over the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District in S.C.No.172 of 2017 dated 05.04.2019, the present appeal came to be filed by the appellants.

2. The appellants/A-1, A-2 and A3 stood convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment as detailed hereunder:

(All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.)

3. The brief facts of the prosecution is as follows:

The deceased is the husband of P.W.1. A2 is the son of A1. A3 is the wife of A1. The deceased and accused are residing in the same village. There was a dispute between the accused and the deceased with regard to collecting of water from the common water pipe. It is the case of the prosecution that the drawing of water from common pipe is depending upon the payment of tax to the temple. The deceased objected the accused's family from drawing of water in the common pipe. When the matter stood thus, on 27.01.2016 at about 6.30 p.m, when the deceased was coming from South to North in front of A1's house, A1 had told the deceased that because of him they could not draw the water. Al's right leg was amputated and he was using aluminum crutches. When A1 questioned the deceased, A2 and A3 held the deceased making him immobile. A1 swang the crutches with his left hand across the face of the deceased causing a deep contusion on the right side of the head of the deceased. Immediately, the deceased fell down and become unconscious. P.W.1 informed P.W.2, who is the son of P.W.1 and P.W.1 with the help of P.W.6 and one Paramasivan took the deceased to the Government Hospital by engaging an ambulance. However, the deceased succumbed to injuries in the hospital. P.W.6 has also witnessed the occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint-Ex.P1 with P.W.11. The sub inspector of police received the complaint at about 9.30 p.m. and registered a case in Crime No.97 of 2016 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 342, 302 and 506(ii) IPC under Ex.P.11-FIR and forwarded the copy to the Superior Officer and to the Court.

4. P.W.14-the Investigating Officer, after receipt of the FIR went to the place of occurrence early morning at 1.30 a.m., prepared observation mahazar-Ex.P7 in the presence of P.W.7 and drew a rough sketch under Ex.P15. P.W.3 Medical Officer attached to the Government Hospital, Thoothukudi, admitted the deceased and noted 10 X 6 cm contusion on the right head and issued Ex.P2 and also given report to admit the deceased in emergency ward under EX.P3. P.W.4-Doctor working in the same hospital has sent death intimation to the police. P.W.14 in continuation of his investigation conducted inquest over the dead body and prepare inquest report under Ex.P16 and gave a requisition to conduct autopsy.

5. P.W.5 conducted autopsy and found the following injuries:

“On dissection of Scalp, Skull and Dura:

Right half of scalp contused. A crack fracture of length 10 cms seen in the right parietal and occipital bones. Sub dural haematom