JUDGMENT

The convicted sole accused is an appellant herein. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Kancheepuram District has convicted the appellant herein in S.C.No.169 of 2013 for offence under Section 304(2) of IPC and sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 21.02.2013 at about 06.00 pm, one Suganraj while chatting with his friend Ilavarasu at Konganancheri Bus Stop, at that time the accused drew the TATA Ace Vehicle in rashly very close to Suganraj. When it was questioned he scolded him with filthy language. Hence, there was a previous enmity. Due to that enmity on 24.02.2013 at about 14.00 hours near Konkancherri Peralamman Temple, the Accused scolded Suganraj with filthy language and assaulted him with Velikathan wooden log on his head and due to the grievous injuries sustained by him, he died on

24.04.2013 at 21.30 hours. Hence, the Inspector of Police, Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station has filed charge sheet against the accused Under Section 294(b), 302 IPC.

3 (a). The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses as PW.1 to PW.14 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. Material Objects 1 to 10 have been marked. No witness was examined and no document has been marked on the side of the defence.

3 (b). During the trial, PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 have turned hostile. PW5 is the grand mother of the deceased. PW.6 turned hostile. PW7 is a hearsay witness. PW.8 is attestor of the seizure mahazar. PW.9 is another attestor of the seizure mahazar of the properties of the deceased. PW.10, PW.11 and PW.14 are the police witnesses, while others are medical witnesses.

4. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidences, the learned Sessions Judge, though the charge against the accused was framed under Section 302 IPC, based upon the reasons stated therein, has scaled down the charges to 304(ii) IPC and convicted and sentenced as stated supra and hence, the appeal.

5. The trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 IPC and based on the evidence, has convicted the accused for the offence under Section 304 (ii) of IPC.

6. On a combined reading of the medical witnesses PW.12 Dr.S.Mugilvizhi and PW.13 Dr.Anandhi, coupled with Ex.P.5 Seizure mahazar, Ex.P.10 Postmortem Certificate, Ex.P.11 Toxicology Report and Ex.P.12 Serology Report, the trial Court has rightly come to the conclusion that the deceased Suganraj died due to the homicidal violence. And based upon the report of the Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.13 coupled with police witnesses has concurred with the respondent police that the seen of the crime is at Konkancherri Peralamman Temple.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/accused and the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) for the respondent/complainant.

8. Admittedly, PW.1 & PW.7, parents of the deceased have turned hostile. In support, the revenue witness PW.9 deposed regarding his part of the investigation touching upon the recovery of materials. Medical witnesses PW.12 & PW13 medical witnesses have deposed regarding conducting of the admission of the injured person and declared that he is a dead and conducting of the postmortem and issuance of Ex.P10 postmortem certificate. With regard to the private witnesses PW.1 to PW.9 as stated supra, except PW.5 Thilagam, the grand mother, none have deposed in support of the case of the prosecution has seems significance. In fact, own mother of the victim fairly gave the evidence that she only saw her son was lying on a pool of blood and she has not witnessed the occurrence, so also the father of the deceased.

9. PW.5 Thilagam, the grand mother of the deceased also deposed regarding the assault by the accused. In the cross examination, she has submitted that there was a huge crowd and only after going through the crowd, she realized that her grand son was injured and lying on the floor. She has not seen the accused in the company of the deceas