- (1.)THE appeal arises from the judgment rendered by the principal Sessions Judge, Tuticorin dated 29-7-1997 in S. C. No. 110 of 1993. 1. 1 The learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant for an offence under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life.
(2.)THE grievance of the appellant is that there is no legal evidence to convict the appellant for any offence and he is entitled to acquittal.
(3.)FOR the purpose of understanding, it would be sufficient to refer to the facts narrated here under :
1] A petty sudden quarrel led to a grave offence of murder. 2] On 8-6-1991 at about 16. 30 hours, the appellant stabbed the deceased on the left side of his chest resulting instantaneous death of the deceased. 3] The reasons for the incident are quite simple. The appellant sold his bicycle to pw. 3 for Rs. 100/- Thereafter, PW. 3 enquired from the deceased whether the price of the bicycle is reasonable. The deceased expressed his view that the price is on higher side. This opinion of the deceased provoked the accused to commit the offence. Some time later, the appellant took out his knife and stabbed the deceased for quoting low price. This was witnessed by PW. 1, the father of the deceased and another by name ranalinga Athikari. He was not examined as witness. It is the case of the prosecution that soon after inflicting the injury, PW. 1 beat the appellant on his head with stick and he ran away. Since the deceased met with instantaneous death, PW. 1 along with the said Athikari went to Vilathikulam Police Station, gave a report. It is Ex. P1. The said Athikari also signed the report as a witness to the incident. PW. 2 is also referred as eye witness to the incident in Ex. P. 1. FW. 2 is an independent person. 4] The police took up investigation and attended to all the requirements of procedural law mentioned under Chapter 12 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 5] The accused pleaded not guilty for the charge, He was defended by an advocate at the trial. 6] During trial 9 witnesses were examined for prosecution, so also 14 documents and 9 MOs were marked. 7] During the course of arguments, our attention has been drawn by Thiru. Pugalendhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant to the factual aspects of the incident and Thiru. Pugalendhi wanted to impress us by highlighting that the entire incident appears to have happened in sudden quarrel, due to sudden fight and it is by grave and sudden provocation by losing self-control by the appellant and it is not an intentional act. 8] In all fairness, the learned counsel stated that the offence alleged against the appellant is not attracting the ingredients of murder but the Court can consider conviction under Section 304 Part II of the IPC and award a reasonable sentence, in case if we do not consider for clean chit in favour of appellant. 9] Learned Additional Public Prosecutor resisted the argument.