The court ruled that the actions of the accused constituted culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II due to provocation rather than murder under Section 302, emphasizing the necessity of intent in legal judgments.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.108 of 2021, dated 03.08.2022, on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased is the wife of the accused. Both of them had been residing under the same roof for 15 years. There was no offspring out of the matrimonial bond. The accused had illegal intimacy with another woman, who happened to be his second wife. While being so, on 31.07.2021, after completing their work under the 100-days work project, the accused and the deceased returned home. On that day, the accused 's relatives came to their house to attend a festival celebration and the accused left to drop them off. Thereafter, the accused did not return home till 07.00 p.m. When the accused returned home, the deceased questioned him about his relationship with the second wife. Feeling humiliated, the accused scolded her using filthy language. At that juncture, the accused poured kerosene on her and set her on fire. Therefore, the deceased sustained severe burn injuries and was taken to the hospital, but she ultimately succumbed to her injuries. 3.On the basis of the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.350 of 2021 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

4.On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the charges to home, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.12 and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O. 1 to M.O.10. The Court examined witness No.1 as C.W.1 and marked Ex.C.1 and Ex.C.2. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo five years Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the prosecution mainly relied upon P.W.1 to prove the charges. However, P.W.1 did not support the case of the prosecution and as the sole eyewitness, her evidence in fact established the innocence of the accused. Further, P.W.2 and P.W.3 also did not support the case of the prosecution. The alleged confession statement of the accused and recovery were not satisfactorily proved by the prosecution. There was a material contradiction with regard to time of the confession and recovery between P.W.6 and P.W.11.

7.The evidence of P.W.6 reveals that the accused was arrested on 01.08.2021 at about 06.15 a.m., when he received a phone call from the Investigating Officer. Apart from this, P.W.2 deposed a completely different version stating that the accused was arrested by the police on the date of occurrence itself. That apart, even according to the case of the prosecution, the accused allegedly committed the offence only after being assaulted by the accused. Therefore, the accused had absolutely no motive to do away with the life of the deceased and even then, the Trial Court mechanically convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

8.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted t