IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of legal principles to determine the appellant's guilt under IPC Section 302 based on the intention to cause the specific bodily injury and its sufficiency to cause death.

JUDGMENT :

Sunder Mohan, J.

(Prayer: Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the conviction of the appellant and sentence in S.C. No.171 of 2016 dated 22.03.2018, on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed in judgment dated 22.03.2018 and acquit the appellant.)

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 22.03.2018 in S.C.No.171 of 2016 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore.

2. For the sake of convenience, the accused is hereinafter referred to as 'appellant'.

3(i) It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant was married to the daughter of the deceased-PW2; that since the appellant and PW2 had matrimonial differences, PW2 stayed with the deceased and her mother PW1; that on 21.08.2016 at 12.00noon, the appellant along with his sister and brother-in-law came to the house of the deceased and requested PW2 to come along with them; that when PW2 refused, the appellant thought that it was the deceased, who prevented PW2 from going with him and stated that he would kill the deceased and thereafter, take PW2 with him; that on 22.08.2016 at 5.30 p.m., when the deceased and PW1, who were rag-pickers, were picking up waste papers, the appellant abused the deceased and attacked the deceased; that when PW1 tried to prevent the appellant, the appellant pushed her and thereafter, stabbed the deceased above his right side stomach with a knife, as a result of which, the deceased died; that PW1 gave a complaint [Ex.P1] on the same day at about 8.00 p.m., which was registered by PW14, the Sub-Inspector of Police in Cr.No.790 of 2016 for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The printed copy of the FIR was marked as Ex.P14.

(ii) PW15, the Inspector of Police, took up the investigation, went to the scene of the occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar [Ex.P2] and the Rough Sketch [Ex.P15]. He conducted an inquest in the presence of the Panchayatars and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P16]. Thereafter, he made a requisition for conducting postmortem and seized the bloodstained earth [M.O.4] and the earth that was not bloodstained [M.O.5] under Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P3]. He also seized the bloodstained tiles [M.O.6] which were found in the footpath opposite AR Bakery, near the place of occurrence and also tiles that were not bloodstained [M.O.7] under Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P4].

(iii) On 23.08.2016 at 9.00 a.m., PW15 arrested the appellant and on his confession, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P5, he seized a steel knife with the plastic handle measuring 27cms length under Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P6]. The knife was marked as M.O.3. He sent the seized articles for analysis to the Forensic Science expert, who gave Serology reports viz., Ex.P18 and Ex.P19 and thereafter, he examined the other witnesses.

(iv) In the meantime, the postmortem was conducted by PW12, who issued the postmortem certificate [Ex.P7]. The doctor had opined that the deceased would appear to have died due to shock and heemorrhage due to internal injuries suffered by the deceased. After examination of all the witnesses, PW15 filed the final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Coimbatore, on 29.08.2016, against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

(v). On the appearance of the appellant, the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., were complied with, and the case was committed to the Court of Session in S.C.No.171 of 2016 and was made over to the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, for trial. The trial Court framed a charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant, and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty.

(vi). To prove the case, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.17, marked 19 exhibits as Exs.P1