The court established that a conviction for murder under Section 302 IPC requires intent to kill, which was absent in this case, justifying a lesser charge under Section 304 IPC.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J. 

1. The accused in S.C.No.63 of 2016 aggrieved by the judgment dated21.02.2020 by which judgment, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Theni, had convicted him for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and had sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo imprisonment for a further period of one year simple imprisonment, has filed the present Criminal Appeal.

2. The case of the prosecution was that on 11.09.2009 at around 02.30 pm, when the appellant/accused and his friends were playing cards near Maravapatti Muthalamman Temple, the deceased Ranjith Kumar came there and sat down and started to advise one of the other players, Thangaraju, by saying do not put that card, do not put this card focussing against the accused. This led to a wordy quarrel between the accused and Ranjith Kumar, in the course of which, the deceased had abused the accused by using foul language and had taken a wooden log and assaulted the accused. At that time, those who were present had separated them. The deceased then told the accused to come to the banyan tree in the village crematorium wherein, they can engage in a fist fight. The deceased shouted as above. All of them separated and went away.

3. It is the further case of the prosecution that later, the accused with intention to kill the deceased, purchased a soori knife at Andipatti. In the evening at 05.20 pm on the same day, 11.09.2009, he had challenged the deceased, Ranjith Kumar, who was standing near Maravapatti Muthallamman Temple and called him to have a fist fight. The deceased, Ranjith Kumar responded and walked in front, creating a big noise with the accused was following him. They went to the north of the banyan tree in Maravapatti crematorium, near Palpandi land and near the wall of the land of Kandasamy. It is the case of the prosecution that at around 5.30 p.m., the accused stabbed the deceased Ranjith Kumar in the back and also on the left side upper stomach and hit him on the left side lower chest causing blood injuries. The deceased Ranjith Kumar was taken to K.Vilakku Government Medical College and Hospital but died on the way at around 06.40 pm.

4. The prosecution had thus laid a final report charging the accused with commission of offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. The final report was taken cognizance as P.R.C. No.07 of 2010 by the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Andipatti. Since the charge was triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions, after completing the formalities of furnishing copies of documents under Section 207 of Cr.P.C., the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Theni District and taken on file as S.C.No.63 of 2010. The learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Theni, questioned the accused on the charges. He denied the same. Thereafter, S.C.No.63 of 2016 was made over for trial before the Additional District and Sessions Court (FTC), Theni.

5. The prosecution was then called upon to prove the charges in manner known to law. The prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-21 witnesses and marked Ex-P1 to Ex-P14 and produced MO-1 to MO-8. On conclusion of trial, the incriminating portion of evidence were put to the accused and his statements were recorded. The accused did not produce any witness nor mark any exhibits.

6. On analysis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC, Theni, had convicted the accused for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and had sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo a further period of one year simple imprisonment. The period of remand was directed to be set off with the period of sentence under Section 428 Cr.P.C. The material objects were directed to be destroyed after the expiry period for filing of appeal or after the disposal of the appeal. Questioning the said conviction and sentence, the accused ha