A distinction exists between intent for murder and culpable homicide; the circumstances of the case must clearly indicate the nature of the accused's intent.

J U D G M E N T

P.B.Suresh Kumar, J.

The sole accused in S.C.No.122 of 2015 on the files of the Additional Sessions Court, Muvattupuzha has come up in this appeal, challenging his conviction and sentence in the said case.

2. One Mathews suffered injuries in an occurrence that took place on 10.02.2013 at the house of the accused and he succumbed to the said injuries later on 12.02.2013. A case was registered against the accused on 10.02.2013 itself in connection with the occurrence, under Sections 341, 323 and 325 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ). On the death of the victim, the offence punishable under Section 302 was also added. After the investigation, final report has been filed in the case against the accused alleging commission of the offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 325 and 302 the .

3. The accusation in the case is that on account of the enmity the accused had towards the deceased for not having lent him money, at about 3 p.m. on 10.02.2013, the accused beat the deceased and when he fell down, the accused stamped and kicked on the abdomen of the deceased and he succumbed to the said injuries later. On committing the accused for trial, as he pleaded not guilty to the charge framed against him by the Court of Session, the prosecution examined 33 witnesses and proved 29 documents in order to prove the guilt of the accused. After the prosecution tendered its evidence, when the accused was questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (the Code), he denied the incriminating circumstances brought out in the evidence against him and maintained the stand that he has nothing to do the occurrence. It was stated by him that on 10.02.2013, while he was playing cards with the deceased and others in his house, the deceased sent him away for buying liquor and when the accused came back to the house with liquor, he found the deceased lying on the floor of his house in a deteriorated state of health. It was also stated by the accused that he had no prior acquaintance with the persons who were playing cards with the deceased at the time when he left the house. Since the Court of Session did not consider 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. The Court of Session, in the circumstances, on an appraisal of the materials on record, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. The accused is aggrieved by the said decision of the Court of Session and hence, this appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as also the learned Public Prosecutor.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the case being one framed on circumstantial evidence, it was obligatory for the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt the various circumstances relied on and that the same should constitute a chain so complete, so as to conclusively show that it was the accused and no one else who committed the crime. It was argued by the learned counsel that the circumstances established in the case do not disclose the guilt of the accused. Alternatively, it was argued by the learned counsel that at any rate, the facts disclosed do not make out a case of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC . The learned Public Prosecutor refuted the arguments aforesaid and contended that the circumstances established in the case would establish beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused. It was also argued by the learned Public Prosecutor that the facts disclosed would certainly indicate that the accused had intended to inflict bodily injuries on the deceased which were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the case would, therefore, fall under the third clause of Section 300 punishable under . 6. The point that arises for consideration i