Culpable homicide varies depending on intention and knowledge; the court's distinction affects conviction severity under IPC, transitioning from murder to culpable homicide with evidence reflecting knowledge over intent.

JUDGEMENT

J.B. PARDIWALA, J. :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is at the instance of a convict accused and is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 04.04.2019 in Criminal Appeal No. 193 of 2019 by which the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein thereby affirming the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal in Sessions Case No. 41 of 2017.

3. It appears from the materials on record that the appellant herein and his father were put on trial in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal in Sessions Case No.

41 of 2017 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’). The Trial Court held the appellant herein guilty for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years with a fine of Rs.

10,000/- and in default of payment of the amount of fine, further rigorous imprisonment of one year. The co-accused i.e. father of the appellant herein came to be acquitted by the Trial Court.

4. The appellant herein being dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the appeal affirming the conviction of the appellant herein for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC.

5. At the outset, Mr. S. Nagamuthu, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant herein, submitted that he is not pressing this appeal on merits. He submitted that his only endeavour is to persuade this Court to alter the conviction of the appellant from the offence punishable under Section 304 Part I of the IPC to Section 304 Part II of the IPC and reduce the sentence accordingly.

FACTUAL MATRIX

6. It appears from the evidence on record that the appellant is an agriculturist. He owns agriculture land in a village by name Sirukinathupalayam situated in Tamil Nadu. The deceased namely Balasubramaniam was also an agriculturist and had his own agriculture land adjacent to the agriculture land of the appellant herein. There was a pathway leading to the agriculture land of the appellant over which the deceased had some issues. At the time of the incident, the appellant had cultivated Cassava plants (Tapoica) which was ready for harvesting. On 25.10.2015 at around 7 am, the appellant and his father were harvesting the crop and had also arranged for a lorry for transporting the same from their field. At around 11 am, the deceased came at the place of the incident and threatened the driver of the lorry saying he should not drive his lorry through the pathway leading to the agriculture field of the appellant. At that point of time, the appellant and his father were in their field. The appellant is said to have asked the driver of the lorry to move the lorry to his field to load the crop. This was questioned by the deceased which resulted in a quarrel. It is the case of the prosecution that after verbal altercation between the appellant and the deceased for quite some time, the appellant is alleged to have picked up a “Hoe” (Kalaikottu – in Tamil, a gardening tool with a small metal blade attached with a wooden handle used mainly for weeding) & inflicted a single blow on the head of the deceased as a result of which the deceased fell unconscious and later died in the hospital.

7. The FIR was lodged on 25.10.2015 at 19.30 Hrs. On completion of the investigation, police filed charge sheet for the offence of murder. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions as the offence was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court. The Additional Sessions Judge, Namakkal vide orde