The Court determined the act was impulsive without intent to kill, warranting a conviction under Section 304 Part II, highlighting an important distinction in homicide cases.

JUDGMENT

Jobin Sebastian, J.

The sole accused in S.C. No.894/2017 on the file of the Sessions Court, Kozhikode, has preferred this appeal challenging the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed against him for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code .

2. The prosecution case in brief is as follows:

The accused and the deceased Subair were brothers, residing together in their ancestral house bearing No.IX/2015 of Valayam Grama Panchayath. Prior to the incident, the deceased had purchased a pair of goats. But a dog attacked and killed one of the said goats, and the other sustained injuries. Following the said incident, on 03.05.2017, the deceased tied the injured goat in the verandah of the house to save it from the dogs' attack. The accused, who disliked the same, on the same day, at about 7 p.m. questioned the deceased, which resulted in a sudden quarrel between them. During the quarrel, the accused went inside the house, took a knife, placed it in his loin and came back to the courtyard of the house. On seeing this, the deceased took a rafter. Then the accused snatched the rafter from the deceased and beat him on the head. Thereafter, the accused took the knife and stabbed the deceased in the chest. After the incident, though the injured was taken to the hospital, he succumbed to the injuries. Hence, the accused is alleged to have committed the offences mentioned above.

3. Upon completion of the investigation, the final report was laid before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Nadapuram. Being satisfied that the case is one triable exclusively by a Court of Session, the learned Magistrate, after complying with all the necessary formalities, committed the case to the Court of Session, Kozhikode, under Section 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge, having taken cognizance, issued process to the accused, and in response to the same, the accused, who was under judicial custody, was produced before the trial court. On production of the accused, the learned Sessions Judge, after hearing both sides under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and upon perusal of the records, framed a written charge against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 of IPC . When the charge was read over and explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

4. During the trial, from the side of the prosecution, PW1 to PW24 were examined and marked Exts.P1 to P50. MO1 and MO6 were exhibited and identified. After the completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., during which he denied all the incriminating materials brought out in evidence against him. Thereafter, both sides were heard under Section 232 of Cr.P.C., and since it was not a fit case to acquit the accused under the said provision, the accused was directed to enter on his defence and to adduce any evidence that he may have in support thereof. However, no evidence whatsoever was produced from the side of the accused. Thereafter, both sides were heard in detail, and finally, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 302 of the IPC , and he was convicted. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- for offence punishable under Section 324 of the . In default of payment of the fine, the accused was ordered to u