Provocation leading to loss of self-control can reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part I IPC, requiring evaluation of intent and the nature of prior events.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.)

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.49 of 2021 dated 13.06.2025 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Ramanathapuram, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased was doing a wholesale business in grocery items and used to supply them to small shops in nearby villages using his four wheeler, a Tata Ace vehicle. While being so, on 23.10.2019 at about 06.30 p.m., when the deceased was supplying groceries in his vehicle near Vannangundu Panaiadiyan Temple, he hit a peacock due to his rash and negligent driving and caused injuries to the bird. The accused witnessed the said accident and scolded the deceased for the same. Immediately, the deceased got down from the vehicle and slapped the accused repeatedly in the presence of several women. Feeling insulted and agitated, the accused took the injured peacock and handed it over to the Forest Department Officials for treatment.

3.On the next day ie., 24.10.2019, the deceased left his house to attend to his business in his vehicle. At about 08.30 a.m., when the deceased stopped his vehicle near the Village Administrative Office, Vannangundu and got down and walked on the road, the accused came there and stopped him. He confronted the deceased and picked up a quarrel regarding the earlier incident. Two passers by had witnessed the quarrel and pacified them. Thereafter, they went to tea shop to have tea. When they returned, they saw the deceased lying with injuries on his left chest. However, they did not see the accused at the scene. The incident was immediately informed to the wife of the deceased through another person at about 09.15 a.m. On receipt of the information, the wife of the deceased rushed to the scene of crime and found that the deceased had died due to the injuries sustained by him. She lodged a complaint, which was registered by the respondent in Crime No.147 of 2019 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 had examined P.W.1 to P.W.20 and Exs.P1 to P15 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.8. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 341 and 302 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.10,000/- in default, to undergo three months Simple Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the wife of the deceased had deposed as P.W.1 and that she was employed at the Head Post Office, Ramanathapuram. According to her, she was informed about the incident by P.W.9 and based on the said information, she went to the scene of occurrence and lodged the complaint. However, during cross-examination, she stated that she did not go to the scene of occurrence and had gone directly to the hospital.

7.The persons who mediated the quarrel between the deceased and the accused deposed as P.W.2 and P.W.3. P.W.2, who is e