The court determined that the absence of premeditation and intent to kill qualified the act as culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II of the IPC.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This appeal is directed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.36 of 2019, dated 27.01.2021, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai, thereby convicting the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of I.P.C.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on 31.05.1990 at about 7:30 p.m., when the deceased and his father were standing in front of the house belonging to one Muniyammal, they questioned the accused as to how he could vulgarly tease his sister. Therefore, the accused came out from his house and stabbed the deceased. The deceased died on the way to the hospital and was subsequently declared brought dead.

3. On the complaint, the respondent registered the F.I.R in Crime No.187 of 1990 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of I.P.C. After completion of the investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court. The Trial Court framed charges as against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of I.P.C.

4. On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the charges to home, they had examined P.W.1 to P.W.7 and Exs.P1 to P17 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O.1 to M.O.10. 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 accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C and sentenced him to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324 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 accused had absolutely no motive to do away with the life of the deceased. Due to a sudden provocation by the deceased, he stabbed him that too with a pen knife. Unfortunately, the injury was inflicted on the throat of the deceased and, as a result of heavy bleeding, he died. The accused had eight children. Therefore, in order to support his family due to financial hardship, after being released on bail, he went to Tiruppur for his livelihood and stayed there. After 30 years, he was arrested and subjected to trial. Hence, the absconding of the accused was neither wilful nor wanton. He remained absent without being aware of the consequences. Further, the injured witnesses were not examined by the prosecution, which is fatal to the prosecution’s case. There are also contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which are fatal to the case.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the motive. Even according to the case of the prosecution, the accused had merely commented on the sister of the deceased, and therefore, he had no intention to do away with the life of the deceased. In fact, the alleged occurrence took place within the compound wall of the accused’s house, and the accused never went to the deceased’s place to cause his death. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. The learned counsel further submitted that, from the date of his arrest, the accused has been incarcerated and remains in