The court established that intentional infliction of bodily injuries that are sufficient to cause death satisfy the criteria for murder under IPC Section 302.

JUDGMENT

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The sole accused in S.C.No.796 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court-IV, Thiruvananthapuram is the appellant. He challenges in this appeal, the conviction entered and the sentence passed against him in the said case.

2. The case of the prosecution as disclosed in the final report is that on 26.08.2014, at about 7.30 a.m., while the accused and his mother Lilly were walking together through the by-lane near their house, the accused picked up a quarrel with Lilly for not having given him money for consuming alcohol and hit her successively using a granite stone. It was also the case of the prosecution that when Raymond, one of their neighbours intervened in the quarrel, the accused hit Raymond also using the granite stone and when Raymond warded off the hit, the stone fell on his leg causing injuries. It was the further case of the prosecution that the accused hit the granddaughter of Raymond also on her face. The mother of the accused died later on 29.08.2014 on account of the injuries sustained by her in the occurrence.

3. A case was registered on the date of occurrence by Poonthura Police based on the statement given by Raymond as Crime No.1182 of 2014 under Sections 324 and 308 of Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). Later, on the death of Lilly, the offence punishable under Section 302 was also added in the case. After the investigation, final report has been filed against the accused alleging commission of offences punishable under , 308 and 302 .

4. On committing the accused for trial, the Court of Session framed charge and read over the same to the accused. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution thereupon examined 14 witnesses as PW1 to PW14 and proved as many as 14 documents as Exts.P1 to P14. MO1 is the material object in the case.

5. Among the witnesses examined, PW1 is Raymond, who lodged Ext.P1 First Information Statement, PW2 and PW3 are persons cited by the prosecution as eye witnesses to the occurrence, PW4 is the doctor who examined PW1 and issued Ext.P2 wound certificate, PW5 is the doctor who examined the granddaughter of PW1 and issued Ext.P3 wound certificate, PW7 is the brother of the accused, PW11 is the Police Surgeon who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued Ext.P7 postmortem certificate and PWs 12 to 14 are the police officers who conducted the investigation in the case. The material object MO1 is the granite stone allegedly used by the accused for causing injury to the deceased and PW1.

6. After the prosecution tendered its evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code) as regards the incriminating circumstances brought out by the prosecution against him. The accused denied the same and stated that he is innocent. Since the Court of Session did not find the case to be one fit for acquittal under Section 232 of the Code, the accused was called upon to enter on his defence. The accused, however chose not to adduce any evidence.

7. On an appraisal of the materials on record, the Court of Session found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 , 308 and 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.2,00,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 302 , rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 324 and rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 308 . In default of payment of fine, the accused was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under , three months for the offence punishable under and six months for the offence under . The substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. It is aggrieved by the said decision of the Court of Session that this appeal is preferred by the accused.

8. Heard the learned