The court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove intent for murder, leading to a conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II instead of Section 302.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal has been filed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.96 of 2016, dated 19.10.2024, on the file of the learned Fast Track Mahila Court, Sivagangai, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 352 and 302 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that the accused is the wife of P.W1 and they gave birth to two children, namely, the deceased son and one daughter. Thereafter, they had a matrimonial dispute and as such both are living separately for the past 20 years. Three months prior to the date of occurrence, the accused had received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from his wife and the deceased and a further sum of Rs.50,000/- from his brother's son, to desilt the well. The deceased and P.W.1 were cultivating about 50 cents of land. They watered their garden from the desilted well. At that time, the accused shouted at them, stating that he had already told them not to come near the well, for which the deceased shouted at the accused.

3.While being so, on 04.01.2016 at about 06.00 p.m., when the wife of the accused and the deceased son were standing on the eastern side of the well and talking with regard to irrigation of the land, at that juncture, the accused came there in an agitated mood and quarrelled with them. Thereafter, he also threatened that the property would be settled in favour of his brother's son. Due to which, a quarrel ensued between them and the accused pushed his son into the well. Therefore, the deceased sustained injuries and died. On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.3 of 2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 352 and 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.23 and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked. The prosecution produced Material Object M.O.1. On the side of the accused, they had examined D.W.1 and D.W.2 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 offences punishable under Sections 352 and 302 of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo three months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 352 of I.P.C. He was also sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and also imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo six months Simple Imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that P.W.1 to P.W10, P.W.12 and P.W.13 are interested eyewitnesses and no independent witness was examined by the prosecution to prove the charge. Admittedly, there was a family dispute between the appellant and P.W.1, due to which a false complaint was lodged and the appellant was prosecuted for the charges under Sections 352 and 302 of I.P.C. In fact, even as per the post-mortem report, the deceased did not die due to the injuries said to have been caused by the appellant. He died due to drowning and spinal injury. It is also categorically admitted by P.W.1 that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and was a drunkard. Therefore, he himself fell down, sustained injuries and died. Even according to the case of the prosecution, all the eyewitnesses are chance witnesses and their presence at the scene of crime is not proved by any independent evidence. There are contradictions and discrepancies in the prosecution evidence and