IMPORTANT POINT
A dying declaration can serve as the sole basis for conviction if it is found to be truthful and voluntary, and the distinction between murder and culpable homicide is critical in determining the appropriate charge and sentence.

JUDGMENT :

(Sunder Mohan, J.)

This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 28.06.2017 in S.C.No.82 of 2015 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore.

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 is the son-in-law of the deceased; that the appellant, his wife, and the deceased were living jointly along with the children of the appellant and deceased; that the appellant was aggrieved by the fact that the deceased was spreading false rumours about her own daughter, i.e., his wife; that on 18.07.2014 at about 10.00 p.m., when the deceased and her daughter PW1 were fighting with each other, the appellant stabbed the deceased with a knife and further cautioned the deceased that if she created further problems, he would kill her.

(ii) It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 gave a complaint (Ex.P13) to the Sub Inspector of Police (PW10), who registered an FIR (Ex.P14) for the offences under Sections 294(b), 324, and 506(ii) of the IPC. The deceased was taken to the hospital and PW11 treated her and made entries in the accident register, which was marked as Ex.P18. PW11 had noted as follows:

“laceration wound in epigastric region appearing a evisceration wound 5x1x3cm”

Thereafter, on 19.07.2014, the deceased died at 09.00 a.m., and the FIR was altered to Section 302 IPC by alteration report [Ex.P17].

(iii) PW12 took up the investigation, conducted an inquest on 20.07.2014 between 9.00 and 11.00 a.m., and prepared the inquest report [Ex.P19]. PW12 sent the body of the deceased for a postmortem. PW3- doctor conducted a postmortem and issued a postmortem certificate (Ex.P3). PW12 thereafter examined the postmortem doctor.

(iv) PW13, the Inspector of Police, who took over the investigation, had formed a special team to apprehend the accused. PW14 continued the investigation and arrested the appellant on 02.12.2014 at about 3.30 p.m., and on his confession, the admissible portion of which was marked as Ex.P6, he seized the knife M.O.1 under Seizure Mahazar [Ex.P7]. PW15 conducted further investigation, and, after examining the other witnesses filed a final report on 25.02.2015 against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Katpadi.

(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.82 of 2015 and was made over to the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore, for trial. The trial Court framed charges u/s.302 of the IPC as against the appellant, and when questioned, the appellant pleaded 'not guilty.

(vi) To prove the case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.15 and marked 19 exhibits as Exs.P1 to P19, and marked one Material Object, viz., M.O.1. When the appellant was questioned, u/s.313 Cr.P.C., on the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, he denied the same. The appellant/accused neither examined any witnesses, nor marked any documents.

(vii) On appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt, and held the accused guilty of the offences under Section 302 of the IPC, and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Hence, the accused/appellant has preferred the appeal challenging the said conviction and sentence.

4. Heard, Mr.V.C.Janardhanan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, and Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State. This Court also perused all the materials available on record.

5.(i) The learned counsel for the