A conviction for culpable homicide requires establishing intent, which was lacking in this case, leading to a revised charge under Section 304 Part II IPC.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.80 of 2021, dated 14.11.2025, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC), Palani, thereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 302 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the son of the accused and the son of the deceased were classmates at the Government High School, Poondi, Kodaikanal. The accused had earlier warned the deceased not to allow his son to associate with the accused’s son, alleging that his son had developed bad habits because of the deceased’s son.

3. On 24.10.2019, at about 12.45 p.m., the accused went to the school to complain about the conduct of the deceased’s son. After lodging the complaint with the concerned teacher, when he was coming out of the school premises, he saw the deceased, who had come to the school during lunch hours to feed his son.

4. Upon seeing the deceased, the accused quarrelled with him regarding his son’s conduct and abused him in filthy language. An altercation ensued between them. The accused assaulted the deceased with his hands in the presence of the deceased’s son. As a result, the deceased sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital; however, he was declared dead.

5. On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.352 of 2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 302 of I.P.C as against the accused. After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

6. On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the charges to home, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.14 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On the side of the appellant, he had examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 and no documents were marked before the Trial Court.

7. On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 294(b), 323 and 302 of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo two months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 323 of I.P.C and he was imposed with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 294(b) of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was absolutely no prior enmity between the deceased and the accused. Even according to the prosecution case, the accused went to the school to lodge a complaint against the deceased’s son. After lodging the complaint, while he was coming out of the school, he saw the deceased, and a wordy quarrel ensued between them. The quarrel continued, resulting in a scuffle between them.

9. During the altercation, when the deceased was pushed by the accused, he fell on a stone and sustained injuries. Unfortunately, he died on the way to the hospital. Therefore, the accused had absolutely no motive to do away with the life of the deceased. He merely pushed him and had no intention to cause his death. Hence, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C

10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove how the injuries were caused to