Muthupandi @ Muthukalai vs State

Sl.No.,Offence,Conviction and Sentence

1.,Section 302 IPC,Life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment

2.,Section 506(ii) IPC,one year Rigorous Imprisonment

In respect of the occurrence, i.e. accused person causing injury to the deceased, the prosecution relies upon the evidence of eyewitnesses,",,

namely, PWs.1 & 2. The main contention raised is that PWs.1 & 2 could not have been eyewitnesses to the occurrence and if at all, the Court",,

finds the evidence of PWs.1 & 2, eyewitnesses as reliable and convincing, even then the act of the accused would not amount to homicide and that",,

it would amount to culpable homicide, not amounting to murder. This is the main contention of the learned counsel for the accused. It is specifically",,

contended that having regard to the weapon used and in the absence of motive being proved, what is made out is only knowledge and not the",,

intention.,,

In order to appreciate this contention, the Court has to critically analyze the evidence of PWs.1 & 2. Allegedly, on the early morning of",,

23.05.2012, the deceased had been in the company of PWs.1 & 2, at which time the accused is stated to have caused injuries with wooden log.",,

The origin of occurrence has not been properly explained in the evidence of PWs.1 & 2 and PWs.1 & 2 would state that by making an accusation,,

that only because of the case preferred by the son of the deceased, the accused had to suffer imprisonment, the accused caused indiscriminate",,

beatings leading to the death of the deceased. It is not stated whether this occurrence was immediately after the release of the accused or long,,

thereafter. In fact, it is not even proved that the accused suffered incarceration only on account of the case filed by PW1. It is appropriate to point",,

out that PW1 did not admit that he preferred such a complaint. Under the circumstances, there is a doubt regarding origin of occurrence. When the",,

origin of occurrence is suppressed, we are not inclined to hold that there was intention on the part of the accused to cause the death of the",,

deceased. When a weapon like wooden log is used in the occurrence, the logical inference could be that the accused did so with knowledge that",,

the injuries are likely to cause death. Under the circumstances, this Court is constrained to modify the conviction and sentence passed from Section",,

302 IPC to Section 304(II) IPC.,,

The conviction and sentence imposed in respect of the offence under Section 302 IPC is modified to Section 304(II) IPC. The life sentence,,

imposed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in S.C.No.182 of 2013 dated 12.09.2014 is hereby set aside. The",,

sentence already undergone by the accused is sufficient for the conviction and sentence under Section 304(II) IPC as well as under Section 506(ii),,

IPC. Hence, the accused is ordered to be acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC and the accused is held responsible for the charge under",,

Section 304(II) IPC. However, having regard to the period of sentence already undergone, the accused is ordered to be set at liberty, if not",,

wanted in any other case.,,

In the result, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.",,