Ravi v. State

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated asfollows:P.W.1, Selvaraj is the younger brother of deceased Ragu. Bothof them went to Vambakeerapalayam arrack shop on 30.06.1999 atabout 8.30 P.M.While they were consuming arrack purchased in thesaid arrack shop, the appellant/accused who had come to the saidvillage as a guest of one Velmurugan (P.W.6) came to the saidarrack shop and asked the deceased to lend a match box to lit hiscigaratte. The deceased Raghu replied him that he was not havingmatch box as he did not have the habit of smoking. On hearing thesaid reply, the appellant/accused abused him with filthy languagepursuant to which the deceased Raghu pushed the appellant/accused.The appellant/accused who fell on the ground took a soda bottlewhich was lying there, broke it, stabbed the deceased on his neck,using the broken soda bottle and then ran away from the place ofoccurrence. The above said occurrence was witnessed by P.W.1 –Selvaraj, P.W.2- Palani and P.W.3 Pappayee, both employed in thesaid arrack shop and also by P.W.5 – Moorthy,Immediately after theoccurrence, the injured Ragu was taken to the General Hospital,Pondicherry (now Puducherry) by P.W.1 in a cycle rickshaw fortreatment. However on arrival at the General Hospital, Pondicherry(now Puducherry) , P.W.10-Dr.Murali, the casualty medical officerof the said hospital examined the deceased at 9.00 P.M. on30.06.1999, found him dead and declared that he was brought dead.After sending intimation to the police under Ex.P4, the dead bodyof Ragu was sent to the mortuary by P.W.10. After the deceasedRagu was declared brought dead by the casulty Medical Officer,P.W.1 went to Odiansalai Police Station and lodged a complaintunder Ex.P1. The oral statement given by him was reduced towriting by one Arumugam, Head constable, in the presence of P.W.12-Thiru.Deivasigamani, the then Sub Inspector of Police, OdiansalaiPolice Station and P.W.1 affixed his signature in the saidstatement. P.W.12-Thiru.Deivsigamani registered a case for anoffence punishable under section 302 IPC against theappellant/accused in Crime No.156/1999 on the file of the abovesaid police station based on Ex.P1-complaint. Ex.P8 is the F.I.R.prepared by P.W.12 in the printed format for the registration ofthe case. The fact of the registration of the said case wasinformed by P.W.12 to the circle Inspector of Police. On receiptof such information, P.W.13-Mr.K.S.Ramalingam, the then Inspectorof Police, went to Odiansalai police station at 10.00 P.M. receiveda copy of the FIR from P.W.12 and took up the investigation of thecase. He then visited the place of occurrence along with P.W.12,one Arumugam (Head Constable) and P.W.1-Selvaraj. The statementsof P.W.1, P.W.2 , P.W.3 and P.W.6 and other witnesses were recordedby P.W.13 in the place of occurrence. Thereafter, P.W.13 went tothe General Hospital, Pondicherry (now Puducherry) and conducted https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ inquest on the dead body of Ragu in the presence of Panchayatars on01.07.1999 between 8.00 P.M and 10.30 P.M and prepared Ex.P9inquest report. P.W.13 also gave a requisition to the ResidentMedical Officer for post mortem examination of the dead body of thedeceased. P.W.11-Dr.R.Balaraman conducted an autopsy and issuedEx.P5 postmortem examination report. During postmortem examinationP.W.11, found the following injuries on the dead body of deceasedRagu:-(i)an incised wound 4x 1/2 x 1/2 cms over the middle of thechin;(ii)An irregular incised wound 5x1.5 cms, cutting trachea onthe right side, present over the front of neck below thyroidcartilage. ( The injury had cut blood vessels of the neck onthe right side); and (iii) an incised wound ½ x ½ cms over the right thumb on thepalmar aspect. The stomach contained blood stained fluid about 100ml. withsmell of alcohol. The internal organs were preserved and sent forchemical analysis. On receipt of Ex.P6, Chemical Analysis Report,P.W.11 gave his final opinion under Ex.P7 opining that death hadoccurred due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the injury found onthe neck and that the deceased was also found to have consumedalcohol. 3. The blood stained clothes of the deceased produced asM.O's – 1 to 5 were recovered by the investigating officer(P.W.13)under Ex.P2 Seizure Mahazar in the presence of one Palanivel andP.W.8 - Ravi kumar. The crime details report prepared by theinvestigating officer in the presence of P.W.9. - Remo and oneMurugan is Ex.P3. The invetigating officer viz. P.W.13 arrestedthe appellant/accused on 13.09.1999 at about 6.00 A.M. at theresidence of his relative viz. P.W.6 – Velmurugan, recorded theconfession statement given by the appellant / accused in thepresence of witnesses (Balamurugan and Jayakumar) and sent theaccused to the Court for remand. Before completing theinvestigation P.W.10 was transferred from Grand Bazaar circle andhence he handed over the case records to his successor viz. P.W.14- Thiru. P.R. Ramachandran, who took up the further investigationof the case, recorded the statement of the police photographer whohad taken the photograph of the deceased and seen of occurrence andrecovered those photographs marked as M.Os. 6 and 7 and M.Os. 10 to12 along with their respective negatives marked as M.Os. 8 and 9,and M.Os. 13 to 15. After completing the investigation, P.W.14submitted a final report alleging commission of an offence undersection 302 IPC by the appellant / accused. 4. The final report was taken on file by the learned judicialfirst Class Magistrate Pondicherry (now Puduchery) as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ P.R.C.No.2/2000. After furnishing copies of the documents reliedon by the prosecution to the appellant/ accused under section 207Cr.P.C and following the procedure for committing cases for trialto the Court of Sessions, the learned judicial First classMagistrate, Pondicherry (now Puduchery) committed the case fortrial under section 209(a) Cr.P.C to the sessions court,Pondichery.5. The learned principal sessions judge, Pondichery took it onfile as S.C.No.11/2000 and made it over to the Court of theAdditional Sessions Judge (trial court) for disposal according tolaw. Necessary charge for an offence punishable under section 302I.P.C. was framed against the appellant/accused in the trial court(the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry, nowPuduchery). The appellant/accused pleaded not guilty and wantedthe case to be tried.6. As many as fourteen witnesses were examined as P.Ws. 1 to14, ten documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P10 on the side of theprosecution in order to prove the charge framed against theappellant/accused. M.Os. 1 to 16 were also produced on the side ofthe prosecution. After completing recording of evidence on theside of the prosecution, the accused was examined under section 313(1)(b) regarding the incriminating materials found in the evidenceadduced on the side of the prosecution. The accused denied them asfalse and reiterated his stand that he was innocent. No witnesseswas examined and no document was produced on his side.7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puduchery (trialjudge) heard the arguments advanced on either side, considered theevidence brought before him in the light of such arguments and uponsuch consideration, came to the conclusion that the prosecution hadproved that it was the appellant/accused who caused the death ofthe deceased by stabbing him with a broken soda bottle on the neckbeyond reasonable doubt. However the learned trial judge held thatsaid act of the appellant/accused in causing the death of thedeceased Ragu would not amount to culpable homiside not amountingto murder punishable under section 302 I.P.C. and on the otherhand, the same would amount to cupable homicide not amount tomurder punishable under section 304(ii) IPC. Based on the saidfinding, the court below recorded a conviction for an offencepunishable under section 304(ii) I.P.C and sentenced theappellant/accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period ofseven years for the above said offence without imposing any fine.8.Challenging the conviction and sentence, theappellant/accused has brought forth this Appeal on various groundsset out in the appeal petition. The points that arise forconsideration are as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (i)Whether the finding of the court below that theappellant/accused was guilty of an offence punishableunder section 304(ii) is erroneous?and(iii)Whether the conviction recorded by the court belowand sentence imposed on the appellant/accused for theoffence punishable under section 304(ii) IPC should beset aside or in any way interfered with?9. The arguments advanced on either side were heard. Theentire materials available on record wre also perused by thiscourt. The sole accused, who was prosecuted for an offence undersection 302 I.P.C. but convicted for lesser offence, namely anoffence punishable under section 304(ii) I.P.C. and sentenced toundergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, has come forwardwith this Appeal challenging the above said conviction andsentence.10. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant/accused,Mr.V.Sairam, learned counsel submitted that the judgment of thecourt below convicting the appellant/accused for an offencepunishable under section 304(ii) I.P.C. and sentencing him toundergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years was against law,weight of evidence and liable to be set aside, that the court belowfailed to note the material contradictions found in the evidence ofprosecution witnesses regarding the occurrence as well asinvestigation; that the court below failed to appreciate the factthat the first investigating officer had not chosen to recover theblood stained earth from the alleged place of occurrence; that thepresence of conflicting versions given by prosecution witnesses asto whether the blood stains were found in the scene of occurrenceat the time of inspection of the same by the investigating officer;that the court below having arrived at a conclusion that therecould have been no intention to kill the deceased, it should havealso come to the conclusion that not even the offence punishableunder section 304(ii) was made out and at the best, the offencewould amount to an offence punishable either under sections 324I.P.C. or under section 326 I.P.C; that in any event the sentenceimposed was excessive and disappropriate to the criminality of theact of the appellant and that hence the appellant should beacquitted holding him not guilty of any offence or at least theconviction should be modified as one for a lesser offence with aresultant reduction of the sentence.11. Per contra, Mr.Thangavelu, the learned Public Prosecutorsubmitted that the well considered finding of the court below tothe effect that it was the appellant/accused who caused the deathof the deceased by inflicting, stab injury on his neck using a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ broken soda bottle could not be said to be discrepant capable ofbeing interfered with in this appeal; that the prosecution provedbeyond reasonable doubt the overt act of the part of theappellant/accused; that infact the state could have come forwardwith an appeal because the court below had chosen to convict theappellant/accused for a lessar offence, that the offence punishableunder section 302 had been proved beyond reasonable doubt by theprosecution by adducing sufficient and proper evidence and thathence there was no scope whatsover for interfering with thejudgment of conviction and order of sentence of the court below atinstance of the appellant/accused. As an alternative argument, itwas contended by the Public Prosecutor that even assuming that thefacts would attract a lesser offence punishable under section 326I.P.C., the sentence awarded by the court below could not be termedeither excessive or harsh and that in any event, the sentence ofimprisonment awarded by the court deserved confirmation.12. This court paid its anxious consideration to thesubmissions made on either side.13. The occurrence is said to have taken place on 30.06.1999at about 8.30pm near the arrack shop at Vambakeerapalayam, withinthe jurisdiction of Odiansalai Police Station, Puducherry. Theappellant/accused is said to have caused the death of the deceasedRaghu, a Rickshaw puller by inflicting stab injuries on the neck ofthe deceased, using a broken soda bottle. According to theprosecution case, when the deceased Raghu and his brother Selva Raj(P.W.1) were consuming arrack purchased from the above said arrackshop, the appellant/accused came there and wanted the deceased tolend him his match box to lit his cigarette, for which the deceasedRaghu replied in the negative stating that he did not have thehabit of smoking and hence no match box was available with him. Itis the further case of prosecution that, besides commenting that itwas surprising to hear that the deceased was not having the habitof smoking, while he had the habit of taking alcohol, theappellant/accused abused the deceased using unparliamentary andvulgar words, pursuant to which, the deceased pushed away theappellant/accused whereupon he fell on the ground. Enraged by thesame, according to the prosecution case, the appellant/accused tookan empty soda bottle that was lying on the ground, broke it andusing the broken soda bottle, stabbed the deceased on his neck andescaped from the place of occurrence. The chase made by P.W.1 andothers proved ineffective as the appellant/accused disappeared indark and hence could not be followed. Thereafter P.W.1 took thedeceased in a cycle rickshaw to the General Hospital, Puducherrywhere he was declared dead by the Medical Officer.14. P.W.10, Dr. Murali was the Casualty Medical Officer,Government Hospital, Puducherry who examined the deceased when https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ brought to the hospital and declared him to have been brought dead.Besides, certifying that the deceased was brought dead to thehospital, P.W.10, sent an intimation to the police in Ex.P4regarding the death of the deceased Raghu and sent the dead body tobe kept in the mortuary. According to his testimony, the deceasedwas brought dead to the hospital at 9.00 p.m. Besides suchintimation sent by the Medical Officer to the police, P.W.1 himselfhad gone to the Odiansalai Police Station and lodged a complaint atabout 9.30p.m. He gave the complaint orally and same was reducedto writing by one Arumugam, Head Constable. The said complaint,thus reduced to writing by the Head Constable and signed by P.W.1is Ex.P1. After the registration of the case, P.W.13, Inspector ofPolice, Grand Bazaar Circle, Puducherry, took up the investigationand conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased. Afterthe inquest, based on the requisition given by the investigatingOfficer to the Resident Medical Officer, P.W.11 Dr.Balaramanconducted autopsy and issued Ex.P5, Postmortem Report. Afterreceiving the Chemical Analysis Report of viscera, P.W.11 gave hisfinal opinion under Ex.P7. The following injuries were found on thedead body of the deceased at the time of Postmortem examination andnoted down by P.W.11:-1)an incised wound measuring 4 x ½ x ½ cms over themiddle of the chin,2)an irregular incised wound measuring 5 x 1.5 cms, overthe front of neck below thyroid cartilage, cuttingtrachea and blood vessels on the right side of the neck. and3)an incised wound measuring ½ x ½ cms over the rightthumb at the palmar aspect.The Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy, based on his findingsand after perusing the Chemical Analysis Report of viscera, gave afinal opinion that the deceased Raghu had died of shock andhaemorrhage due to the injury found on the neck. From the evidenceof P.W.11 and Exs.P5 to P7, it is quite obvious that the injuryfound on the neck was the cause of the death of deceased Raghu.The said injury could not have been a self-inflicted injury. 15. There is the clear evidence of P.W.11 that injury No.2 wasthe fatal injury, which caused the death and that the same couldhave been caused by a sharp and irregular weapon like a glasspiece. The probable time of death has also been estimated by theMedical Officer to be more than 6 hours and less than 24 hoursprior to autopsy. The Postmortem examination was commenced at11.00a.m on 01.07.1999. Hence the probable time of death shall bebetween 11.00a.m. on 30.06.1999 and 5.00a.m. on 01.07.1999.According to the prosecution case, the occurrence took place at8.30p.m. on 30.06.1999 and the deceased was brought dead to thehospital at 9.00p.m. itself. The same corresponds to the opinionof the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy. Though there was a https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suggestion put to the Medical Officer, P.W.11, that a fall on theground making the deceased coming into contact with irregular sharpedged weapon like glass piece would have caused the fatal injurynamely, the injury No.2, the said suggestion was stoutly refuted bythe Medical Officer. It was the evidence of the Medical Officerthat in such an event the injury would have been associated withabrasions. The injury Nos.1 and 3, which were also incized wounds,according to the submissions made by the learned GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal Side), alone were associated with the injuryNo.2 and no such abrasion suggesting such fall with a force wasfound on the dead body of the deceased. 16. Taking into consideration the above said medical evidenceand the oral testimony of P.W.11, this Court comes to theconclusion that the Trial Court has arrived at a right conclusionthat injury No.2 resulted in the death of the deceased; that thesaid injury could have been caused by another person and that hencethe death of the deceased Raghu was homicidal and was neithersuicidal nor accidental. There is no defect or infirmity in theabove said finding of the court below and the same deservesapproval of this Court.17. We have seen in the foregoing paragraph that the death ofthe deceased Raghu was neither suicidal nor accidental, but washomicidal. Then the necessary question that arises shall be, whocaused the death of the deceased? Totally four persons wereexamined on the side of the prosecution as eye witnesses. They areP.Ws.1,2,3 and 5. Out of the above said 4 witnesses, P.W.3 hasturned hostile and stated in his evidence that while he was sellingarrack in the above said arrack shop on 30.06.1999 at about8.30p.m, he heard about the attack made by the appellant/accused onthe deceased Raghu with a broken soda bottle. He has not statedthat he saw the occurrence. Therefore, he was treated hostile andduring cross examination on the side of the prosecution, he wassuccessfully contradicted with reference to his statement underSection 161 Cr.P.C. wherein he had stated that he saw the accusedstabbing the deceased on the neck using a broken soda bottle; thatthere after the accused ran towards the cremation ground and thatsubsequently he heard the news that the deceased succumbed to theinjuries on the way to hospital when he was taken by P.W.1 in arickshaw. 18. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased who is said to haveaccompanied the deceased to the arrack shop. It is his clearevidence that while he along with his brother was consuming arrackpurchased from the arrack shop, the accused came there and wantedthe deceased to lend him match box to lit his cigarette and thatthe subsequent altercation resulted in the occurrence in which theappellant/accused took a soda bottle lying on the ground, broke it https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and stabbed the deceased on his neck with the broken piece of thesoda bottle. P.W.1 is the person who took the deceased in arickshaw to the Government Hospital, Puducherry where the MedicalOfficer in the Casualty department examined the deceased andcertified him to have been brought dead. His evidence to thateffect gets corroboration from the evidence of P.W.10 MedicalOfficer. It is he who went to the police station and gave Ex.P1-complaint. Soon after the Medical Officer declared the deceased tobe dead and sent the dead body to mortuary, P.W.1 proceeded towardsthe Odiansalai Police Station, where his oral statement was reducedto writing by the Head Constable. P.W.1 has also signed thestatement thus recorded by the Head Constable. The said evidenceof P.W.1 is also corroborated by the evidence of P.W.12-SubInspector of Police, who registered the case based on Ex.P1-complaint. Of course it is true that P.W.1 is a close relative ofthe deceased. The mere fact that a witness happened to be a closerelative of the deceased is not enough to discard his evidence asinterested testimony. The same shall be accepted after putting itto the test of careful scrutiny. If such a test is applied to thetestimony of P.W.1, the said evidence could not be discarded asunbelievable. His evidence is so cogent and natural without therebeing any exaggeration. 19. P.W.2 is a person who was employed in the arrack shop atVambakeerapalayam at the time of occurrence. He has clearlynarrated the incident in accordance with the prosecution theory.He has also totally corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 by statingthat his attention was drawn by the sound of breaking the sodabottle; that thereafter he saw the appellant/accused stabbing thedeceased on his throat using the broken soda bottle; that afterstabbing the deceased the appellant/accused ran away from the placeof occurrence taking along with him the broken soda bottle used inthe occurrence; that they chased him in vain, as he disappeared indarkness and that thereafter P.W.1 took the deceased to thehospital in a rickshaw. 20. Yet another eye witness, namely P.W.5 has also narratedthe occurrence in a cogent manner. He is said to have travelledalong with his wife in the rickshaw of the deceased toVambakeerapalayam, prior to the occurrence. It is his furtherversion that after leaving his wife in his house atVambakeerapalayam, he went to the arrack shop, where he saw thedeceased and P.W.1 consuming arrack and also witnessed theoccurrence taking place. His narration of the occurrence is intune with the prosecution story and also the testimonies of P.Ws.1and 2. There is no reason, whatsoever, to disbelieve the evidenceof P.W.2 and P.W.5. The evidence of the above said eye witnessesstand unasailed and there is no discrepancy or inherent infirmityin their testimonies making them unreliable or unbelievable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Therefore, this court is convinced that the eyewitness P.Ws.1,2 and5 have given clear and cogent evidence to the effect that it wasthe appellant/accused who caused the injury to the deceased using abroken Soda bottle which ultimately resulted in his death. 21. Subsequent to the registration of the case, theinvestigating officer visited the place of occurrence and preparedEx.P3, Crime Details Form. Of course there are some minordiscrepancies as to whether the blood stains in the place ofoccurrence got erased due to rain. In Ex.P3, it has been notedthat there was rain on the date of occurrence during night hoursand due to the same the blood stains had disappeared from the placeof occurrence. At the same time P.W.2, in his cross examinationstated that the investigating officer saw the blood stains at theplace of occurrence and that there was no rain on the date ofoccurrence. P.W.2 is an employee of the arrack shop in which theoccurrence is said to have taken place. The investigating officerin the Crime Details Form prepared within a few hours from the timeof occurrence, has noted that the blood stains on the earth haddisappeared due to rain. The evidence of P.W.1, regarding the timeat which the police reached the place of occurrence is almost asfound in Ex.P3. When he was examined after one year from the dateof occurrence P.W.3 stated that there was no rain on the date ofoccurrence. On the other hand, the investigating officer in hisCrime Details Form prepared on the same day, has noted that therewas rain and the blood stains on the earth had disappeared. Theabove said discrepancy shall not be enough to disbelieve theprosecution theory. The said discrepancy is insignificant, notcapable of causing any reasonable doubt in the story of theprosecution. Further, P.W.9, one of the attesters of the CrimeDetails Forms has made it clear in his evidence that there had beenrain on the date of occurrence; that the place of occurrence wasfound muddy and hence they could not find any blood stains. M.Os.10 to 15 are the photographs of the scene of occurrence and thecorresponding negatives. They lend support to the testimonies ofP.Ws.9, 13 and Ex.P3. 22. There are more concrete evidence to prove that such anoccurrence took place and it was the appellant/accused who causedthe death of the deceased. In Ex.P1-complaint itself P.W.1 hasstated in clear terms that at the time of occurrence, he did notknow the name and other particulars of the accused and that soonafter the occurrence at the place of occurrence itself he wasinformed that the assailant was one Ravi of Chennai, who hadvisited Vambakeerapalayam, as a guest of one Velmurugan. If at allP.W.1 did have any animosity against the appellant/accused, hewould have straight-away alleged that he personally knew theaccused who had come to Vambakeerapalayam as a guest of Velmurugan.The fact that P.W.1 has chosen to state that on enquiry alone he https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ came to know that the accused had come there as a guest ofVelmurugan, will show that P.W.1 has spoken the true and nothingbut truth. P.Ws.2 and 5, the other eyewitnesses have clearlyidentified the appellant/accused to be the assailant. 23. Apart from the evidence of the above said witnesses, thereis a clinching evidence in the form of the testimony of the abovesaid Velmurugan, who was examined as P.W.6. It is his clearevidence that on 30.06.1999, the appellant/accused came to thehouse of P.W.6 at Vambakeerapalayam as his guest; that theappellant/accused who went out from the house of P.W.6, returned at9.30p.m and that at that time P.W.6 noticed stains in the shirt ofthe appellant/accused. It is his further evidence that theappellant/accused demanded money from him and when the demand wasnot met, he caused damage to the stove and went out. P.W.6. isadmittedly a close relative of the appellant/accused. No motive orill-will is attributed to P.W.6 to depose falsely against theappellant/accused. Clear evidence has also been adduced to theeffect that the appellant/accused was arrested atVambakeerapalayam, when he again came to the house of P.W.6.,Velmurugan. P.W.4 has spoken to the said effect. 24. Though the appellant/accused is said to have given aconfession statement in the presence of Balamurugan and Jayakumar,since no new fact was detected and no material object was recoveredbased on the alleged information furnished by the accused in theconfession statement, the same shall not be admissible and shallnot be useful to prove the prosecution case. The investigatingagency was not in a position to recover the weapon of offencenamely, broken soda bottle. According to the evidence of P.W.13,though the accused was taken to the place of occurrence and asearch was made for the broken soda bottle used for the commissionof offence, the accused was not able to trace and identify the sameand hence no recovery was made under section 27 of the EvidenceAct. Though there was no recovery of the weapon used for thecommission of offence, when the ocular evidence and the othercircumstantial evidence are so clear and unambiguous, the mere factthat the weapon used for the commission of offence has not beenrecovered, shall not be enough to hold that the prosecution has notproved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Over all consideration ofthe evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution will make itobvious, without giving any room for any doubt, much less areasonable doubt, that it was the accused who stabbed the deceasedon his neck with a broken soda bottle and caused his death. On are-appreciation of evidence, this court comes to the conclusionthat the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it wasthe appellant/accused who caused the death of deceased Raghu. Thiscourt is able to find no defect or infirmity in the conclusionarrived at by the court below in this regard. There is no scope, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ whatsoever, for interfering with the same. 25.Even though, the court below has arrived at a conclusionthat the prosecution was able to prove that it was theappellant/accused who picked up quarrel with the deceased andduring the altercation stabbed him on the neck with a broken sodabottle and thereby caused his death, nevertheless, it has come to aconclusion that the said act of causing death would not amount tothe offence of murder as defined under Section 300 IPC and on theother hand, the same would amount to culpable homicide notamounting to murder falling under Section 299 I.P.C. alone. Inarriving at such a conclusion, the learned Trial Judge has observedthat the prosecution did not succeed in establishing that theaccused had caused the death of the deceased Raghu with anintention of causing his death or in such a manner as contemplatedunder Section 300 IPC, so as to make him liable for being punishedunder 302 IPC. The court below has ruled out any intention ofcausing death, but made an observation that the accused might havehad knowledge that in stabbing on the neck with a broken sodabottle, he was likely to cause the death of the deceased. Asagainst the finding that there could not be any intention to causedeath and on the other hand, there could have been a knowledge thatby stabbing, he was likely to cause death, and as against theconviction for a lesser offence than the one punishable underSection 302 I.P.C., no appeal or revision has been preferred by theState. Therefore, this court comes to the conclusion that theconviction recorded by the trial court for an offence under Section304(ii) IPC deserves to be confirmed. 26. So far as the punishment is concerned, the Court below hasawarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 7 years withoutimposing any fine. The said sentence, according to the consideredview of this Court, is quite reasonable and is not excessive. Forall the reasons stated above, this Court comes to the conclusionthat there is no defect or infirmity in the Judgment of the TrialCourt convicting the appellant/accused for an offence punishableunder Section 304(ii) and sentencing him to undergo rigorousimprisonment for a period of 7 years and that hence the same hasgot to be confirmed. The learned Trial Judge has also made itclear that the sentence already undergone during investigation,inquiry and pending trial, should be set off against the sentenceof imprisonment awarded by way of punishment. There is no merit inthe appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

27. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed and theconviction recorded and the sentence imposed by the Trial Court areconfirmed.ars/arrSd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pondicherry.2. Do Through The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pondicherry.3. The Additional Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.4. The Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry.5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Pondicherry.6. The Public Prosecutor, Pondicherry.7. The Station House Officer, Odiansalai Police Station, Pondicherry.+ 1 cc to the Senior Government Pleader cum Senior PublicProsecutor (Pondicherry) SR 33086+ 1 cc to Mr. V. Sairam, SR No. 33176 Judgment inC.A. No.511 of 2001KSK(CO)SR/11.8.2009