The central legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on trustworthy evidence and medical reports to establish the appellant's involvement in the fatal attack, leading to the conviction under Section 304(II) IPC.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal as against the judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed in S.C. No.1 of 2016 by the Court of Sessions, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore.)

This criminal appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 21.02.2019 passed in S.C. No. 1 of 2016 by the Court of Sessions, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore by which, the learned Sessions Judge, while acquitting the accused/appellant of the offences under Sections 294(b) and 449 IPC, convicted him under Section 304(II) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. On 17.09.2015, when P.W.11 was on duty, at Vridhachalam Police station, P.W.1 came to the Police Station and lodged a complaint to the effect that the appellant/accused, who is the sister's son of her husband, on the date of occurrence, came home and picked up a quarrel with him by abusing him in unparliamentary language and since he was admonished by the family members and others present at the scene, he went away and thereafter, when her husband was sitting outside the house in the courtyard, he again came back, picked up a quarrel and attacked him with a wooden log/firewood, which was stacked in front of the house and hit him on the head on account of which her husband sustained fatal injuries and was taken to the hospital in Tata Ace Vehicle and the Doctor, who examined him, declared him as having been brought dead. On the complaint given, a case in Crime No. 745 of 2015 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 449, 294(b) and 302 IPC.

3. P.W.13 took up the case for investigation and completed the investigation and laid the final report, which was taken on file as PRC No. 19 of 2015 by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Vridhachalam proposing the accused guilty of the offences under Sections 449, 294(b) and 302 IPC. Upon being questioned, the appellant/accused denied the charges and stood trial.

4. To bring home the charges, the prosecution examined the wife of the deceased/victim, namely, Kayalvizhi as P.W.1; Elaiyaraja, son of P.W.1 and the deceased as P.W.2; Ramkumar, another son of P.W.1 and the deceased as P.W.3; one Chinndurai, a neighbour, who witnessed the incident as P.W.4; Sivalingam, who is also a neighbour as P.W.5; one Ramamurthy was examined as P.W.6; Murugesan, who was a witness to the Observation Mahazar was examined as P.W.7; the Village Administrative Officer, by name, Sampathkumar, before whom the confession statement is alleged to have been given was examined as P.W.8; Rajeev, Scientific Officer, who had conducted chemical analysis of viscera of the deceased was examined as P.W.9; Govindamurugan, Doctor attached to Government Hospital, Vridhachalam, who conducted postmortem, was examined as P.W.10; Ravikumar, Special Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the First Information Report, was examined as P.W.11; Bakkiyaraj, Police Constable, who handed over the dead body for postmortem and the viscera for chemical analysis was examined as P.W.12 and Senthilkumar, Inspector of Police, who conducted investigation and filed the final report was examined as P.W.13.

5. On behalf of the prosecution, the complaint lodged by P.W.1 was marked as Ex.P1; the Observation Mahazar was marked as Ex.P2; the signature of P.W.8 Sampathkumar in the confession statement given by the accused was marked as Ex.P3; the seizure mahazar was marked as Ex.P4;the viscera report was marked as Ex.P5; the Accident Register of the deceased Palanivel as Ex.P6; the postmortem report as Ex.P7; the First Information Report as Ex.P8; the rough sketch as Ex.P9; the Inquest Report as Ex.P10; the disclosure statement of the accused as Ex.P11; Form 95 as Ex.P12 and Alteration Report as Ex.P13. The prosecution also produced the wooden log/firewood alleged to have been used by the accused as M.O.1.

6. Upon being questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. about the evidence on record and the incriminating circ