The court emphasized differentiation between murder and culpable homicide based on intention and knowledge, holding the accused liable under Section 304 Part II for culpable homicide due to the absence of clear murderous intent.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This appeal has been filed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.27 of 2017, dated 15.07.2022, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, thereby convicting the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC .

2. The case of the prosecution is that both the accused are brothers. The accused and the deceased belong to same village. On 01.08.2011 at about 08.00 a.m., both the accused had beaten P.W.1 alleging that he committed eve-teasing on their brother's daughter, who was studying in grade 12. Thereafter, P.W.1 informed about the said occurrence to his maternal uncle namely Manikandan. On the same day, at about 5.30 p.m., P.W.1, the said Manikandan along with his father-in-law rushed from Thisayanvilai Village to P. Velankulam Village and went to the house of the accused. The paternal uncle of the P.W.1, who was the deceased questioned the accused as to why he attacked P.W.1 for such a simple problem. Immediately, the accused scolded him with filthy language and dragged him in front of their house and assaulted him with aruval and knife. Therefore, the deceased sustained grievous injuries. Subsequently, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

3. On the basis of the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.107 of 2011 for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 323, 324 and 302 of IPC . 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.17 and Exs.P1 to P12 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O. 1 to M.O.8. 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 Sections 302 of I.P.C. They were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and imposed a fine of Rs.15,000/- each. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellants.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the occurrence allegedly happened in the house of the accused. They had absolutely no intention or motive to cause the death of the deceased. Even according to the prosecution, the deceased along with others went to the house of the accused and questioned them about the morning incident. All of a sudden, the accused was provoked by the deceased and assaulted them. The prosecution failed to prove the charge under Section 302 of IPC . Further, the accused had absolutely no common intention to do away with the life of the deceased.

7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that, though the occurrence had happened in the house of the accused, P.W.1 was beaten by the accused and as such, the accused had a motive to do away with the life of the deceased. When the deceased questioned about the morning incident, he was dragged by the accused to the front of their house and assaulted him with deadly weapons. It shows that the accused had assaulted the deceased in order to do away with the life of him. Therefore, the prosecution has proved the charge under Section 302 of IPC . Hence, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellants and it does not warrant any interference of this Court.

8.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

9. Admittedly, P.W.1 was beaten by the accused on 01.08.2011 at about 08.00 a.m. It was informed to the deceased by P.W.1 and h