The court ruled that the appellant's actions stemmed from sudden provocation without intent to kill, modifying the conviction to culpable homicide under Section 304 Part II.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

This appeal has been filed as against the Judgment passed in S.C.No.139 of 2015, dated 20.04.2023, on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court (Fast Track) Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District, thereby convicting the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of I.P.C .

2.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased and accused were residing in the same street. While being so, on 16.12.2013, when the deceased had gone out of his house, the accused allegedly had stolen 10 kgs of iron sheets. After enquiry, it was found that the accused had committed the theft and he was warned by the deceased and his daughter. Owing to this, the accused developed a motive to do away with the life of the deceased. On the same day, at about 02.30 p.m., the accused trespassed into the house of the deceased and indiscriminately attacked him by taking a plunger from the house of the deceased, causing grievous injuries on his head and face. Subsequently, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

3.On the basis of the complaint, the respondent registered an F.I.R in Crime No.838 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 450, 294(b) and 302 of I.P.C . After completion of investigation, the respondent filed a final report and the same has been taken cognizance by the Trial Court.

4.On the side of the prosecution, in order to bring the charges to home, they examined P.W.1 to P.W.18 and Exs.P1 to P19 were marked. The prosecution also produced Material Objects M.O. 1 to M.O.8. On the side of the accused, no witnesses were examined and no documents were produced before the Trial Court.

5.On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court found the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 449 of I.P.C . He was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default, to undergo one year Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 302 of . He was also sentenced to undergo ten years Rigorous Imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.4,000/- in default, to undergo nine months Rigorous Imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 449 of . Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant.

6.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the evidence of P.W.1, who was projected as an eyewitness, is not a believable one. In her complaint dated 16.12.2013, she stated that she went to the deceased's house only after being informed by P.W.2 about a verbal altercation between the accused and deceased. This version is corroborated by her statement recorded under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C . She further stated that she had provided food to her father, namely the deceased, in the morning and thereafter returned back to her matrimonial home. She also stated that P.W.2 had gone to visit her mother, leaving the deceased alone. Therefore, no one was present at the time of alleged occurrence and the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges.

7.Further, it was contended that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which are fatal to the case of the prosecution. Despite the same, the Trial Court mechanically convicted the appellant. It was also pointed that the so-called eyewitnesses, namely P.W.1 to P.W.3, had bloodstains in their clothes, but the same were neither recovered nor produced by the respondent and there is no corroborative evidence to support their testimony. In fact, P.W.3 turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution.

8.Even according to the prosecution, P.W.1 to