The court determined that acts committed in sudden provocation can result in a conviction for culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II instead of murder under Section 302 of IPC.

JUDGMENT :

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.369 of 2021, dated 19.07.2022, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, thereby convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 10.10.2020 at about 06.30 p.m., when the deceased, along with his daughter and wife, was standing in their cattle shed and talking with them, the accused, who is none other than the son of the deceased, came there and demanded money from his father. The deceased refused to give money, since the accused was not regular in attending his work. Aggrieved by the same, the accused threatened the deceased and also assaulted him with an oak wooden log on his head. Due to the said assault, the deceased fell down and died. Based on the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.234 of 2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 294 (b), 506(ii) and 302 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a final report was filed and the same was taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

3.In order to bring the charges to home, the prosecution had examined P.W.1 to P.W.11 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. The prosecution produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.6. On the side of the accused, he had examined one D.W.1 and no documents were marked before the trial Court.

4.On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court found the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C, and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has preferred the present appeal.

5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that appellant had absolutely no intention to do away with the life of the deceased. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the appellant went to the place of occurrence only to demand money from his father. When the deceased refused to give money, the appellant, being provoked and in a fit of anger, took an oak wooden log which was lying in the cattle shed and assaulted him. Already the deceased was suffering from age related ailments and had undergone medical treatments from the year 2016 to 2020. After the assault, the deceased fell down and due to his ailments, he died. Therefore, the conviction under Section 302 of I.P.C cannot be sustained and at the most, the appellant can be convicted only for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of I.P.C.

6.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent submitted that the appellant assaulted the deceased with a wooden log on his head, which clearly shows his intention to cause death. The deceased sustained a head injury and succumbed to the same. The Doctor who conducted autopsy had deposed as P.W.9 and he categorically deposed that the deceased died due to injuries sustained. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of I.P.C and the same does not require any interference of this Court.

7.Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

8.The sister of the appellant had deposed as P.W.1 and the mother of the appellant had deposed as P.W.2. They categorically deposed that the appellant used to demand money from the deceased without attending any work. Therefore, the appellant is a problematic person and on the date of occurrence when P.W.1 and P.W.2, along with the deceased, were standing near the cattle shed and talking, the appellant went there and demanded money. When the deceased refused to give money, all of a sudden, the appellant