In re: A. Thiagarajan

David Annoussamy, J.—This is a revision petition against conviction and sentence. The revision petitioner is called absent. The counsel on

record is also absent. No representation is made on behalf of the revision petitioner. The judgment of the court below, the grounds of revision and

the records of the case are perused.

The case of the prosecution was as follows: On account of some transaction of bananas an amount of Rs. 15,000 was due by P.W. 1 victim to

the accused. When P.W. 1 was in the vicinity of the accused shop, he was summoned by the accused to the shop. The accused then asked P.W.

1 to pay at least Rs. 500 out of Rs. 1,500 due, for Deepavali expenses. Upon P.W. 1 bluntly saying that he can pay back the amount due only in

the month of ''Thai'' there was an altercation between the both. Then P.W. 1 was persuaded to leave the shop by P.W, 3. When P.W. 1 had left

the shop and moved ten steps, the accused came behind and gave a cut on the back of the neck of P.W. 1. Then P.W. 1 took his Somam and put

it over the wound. Then the accused came again and said ''Oh, you escaped; be finished with this''. So saying the accused gave a cot on the front.

P.W. 1 snatched away the aruval. The accused ran northwards. P.W. 1 handed over the aruval to P.W. 3.

Upon finishing the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed final report under S. 173, Crl.P.C., to the effect that an offence under S.307,

I.P.C., appeared to have been committed by the accused. Charge was framed accordingly by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli. The

prosecution examined 11 witnesses consisting of the victim and three eye witnesses, marked seven exhibits and produced seven material objects.

The accused examined one witness, Upon perusing the evidence adduced and the arguments put forth by both sides the trial Court came to the

conclusion that the charge was proved and accordingly convicted the accused under S. 307, I.P.C, and sentenced him to five years of rigorous

imprisonment. On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli, by judgment, dated 23rd August, 1983, confirmed the conviction and

reduced the sentence to three years of rigorous imprisonment. This revision is directed against the said appellate judgment.

Learned advocate appearing for the Public Prosecutor was heard.

Most of the grounds of revision are directed against minor defects, which, according to the revision petitioner, are found in the prosecution case.

Those defects have already been considered by both the trial court and the appellate Court and upon appraising the totality of the evidence those

Courts have come to the conclusion that the essential facts were proved. There is no perverse finding so as to warrant interference by this Court in

respect of those essential facts. The only question which arises in this revision petition is in regard to the nature of the offense committed by the

accused. To prove an offence under S. 307, I.P.C, the prosecution should establish that the act has been done with such intention or knowledge

and under such circumstances that, if the accused, by that act caused death, he will be guilty of murder. For an act to be murder it should come

under one of the four clauses indicated under S.300, I.P.C. In the present case, the accused wanted only the money which is due to him from

P.W. 1 and it is on account of the altercation which ensued at that the accused was led to inflict cut injuries to P.W. 1 and no intention can be

attributed to the accused to cause the death of the P.W. 1. Therefore, the act does not come under any of the first three clauses of S. 300, I.P.C.

The nature of the knowledge necessary, contemplated under the fourth clause of S.30D, I.P.C, has been explained in a Bench decision of this

Court, viz., Mani alias Subramanian v. State C.A. 580 of 1983 dt. 18th April, 1986 L.W. Cri. 275. The evidence of the prosecution in the instant

case does not show that the accused had such knowledge. Though P.W. 1 attempted to say that the second cut was inflicted on him after an

interval, it is seen that P.Ws. 3 and 4 deposed that both the cuts were inflicted one after the other. Further, the second cut, as per the medical

evidence, resulted only in a simple injury. This is, therefore, a case in which the cuts were inflicted without any premeditation on the spur of the

moment and if death had resulted on account of both the cuts it will not be a murder, but only a culpable homicide. Therefore, the petitioner is

found guilty of only under S.308, I.P.C.

In the result, the conviction and sentence are set aside, the accused is found guilty under S.308, I.P.C., convicted thereunder and is sentenced to

three months of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, within two months from the date of intimation of the judgment by the trial

Court failing which he shall undergo six months of simple imprisonment.