The court established that sudden provocation can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter, particularly in domestic disputes.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by the Hon'ble P.VELMURUGAN J.)

This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment of conviction passed by the learned V Additional Sessions Judge, Madurai, in SC No.491 of 2017 dated 23/12/2021 and to set aside the same and consequently, to acquit the appellant.

2.The respondent Police have registered a case in Crime No.565 of 2016, dated 04/08/2016 for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against the accused. On completion of the investigation, the respondent Police laid a charge sheet before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai and the same was taken on file as P.R.C No.135 of 2016. After completing the formalities, since the offence is triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the case was committed to the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai and it was taken on file as SC No.491 of 2017 and thereafter the same was made over to the V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, for disposal.

3.After completing the formalities under Section 207 Cr.P.C, since there were prima facie materials to frame charge against the appellant, the learned V-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, framed the charge for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC .

4.In order to bring home the charge against the accused, on the side of the prosecution, 10 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW10 and 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P12, besides marking 6 material objects as MO1 to MO6.

5.When the accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C, in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against him on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

6.After completing the trial and upon hearing the arguments advanced on either side and also considering the oral and documentary evidence, the learned V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Madurai found the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC , convicted and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment. The period of detention already undergone by the appellant was ordered to be set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C.

7.Aggrieved over the same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred by the accused, as appellant.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant/accused would submit that there is no eye witness in this case; the prosecution has cited PW1 and PW2 as eye witnesses and they are relatives of the deceased; PW1 is none other than the mother of the deceased, PW2 is the Sister-in-Law of the deceased and further the presence of PW1 and PW2, at the time of the occurrence, is highly improbable. He would further submit that PW3 is also said to have cited as an eye witness, but he turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution; PW4 to PW6 were only hearsay witnesses and there are material contractions in the evidence of the prosecution. He would further submit that there is contradiction between the statements made before the Police under section 161(3) Cr.P.C and deposed before the Court and also there are in total contradiction with each other. Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution is doubtful. Further, he would submit that no independent eye witness deposed against the appellant and the conviction is based on the evidence of interested witnesses; the evidence of the prosecution is not sufficient to prove the case of the prosecution and Ex.P1 complaint is not a genuine one and the same was fabricated and the real complaint has been suppressed in this case and that the medical evidence