Judgment: Appellant is the accused in S.C.No.76 of 1996 on the file of Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai. By the Judgment dated 25.6.1997, the Appellant/Accused was convicted under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of five years. 2. Relationship of the parties is not disputed. Case of prosecution is that accused is the prodigal grand-son of P.W.1-Kuppammal through her elder son. P.W.1 is the wife of deceased Annalamali. They have two sons viz. Govindasamy and Ponnusamy and two daughters. Accused married the grand-daughter of P.W.1. They have two children. Accused is an arrack addict and he used to beat his wife, due to which she went to her parents’ house. Thereafter, the accused in an drunken mood used to demand money, clothing and provisions from P.W.I and deceased Annamalai. 3. Occurrence. On 14.2.1996-5.30 a.m., after breaking open the door, accused entered into the house of P.W. 1 and demanded his share of property and attempted to set fire to her hut. When the same was prevented and questioned by P.W. 1 and deceased Annamalai, accused assaulted P.W.I on her face and pulled Annamalai down; sat on him and throttled his neck with hands. P.W. 1 raised alarm. On hearing the same, P.W.2 - Ooran @ Devendiran of Komutteri Village and others rushed to the spot and the accused ran away from that place. P.W.2 went inside the house and found Annamalai lying dead. 4. Registration of F.I.R. P.W.1 and the Villagers reported the same to P.W.5 - Village Administrative Officer. P.W.5-Village Administrative Officer recorded the Statement of P.W. 1 and went along with her to Jamunamarathur Police Station and gave a complaint - Ex.P. 1 to the Head Constable. On the basis of Ex.P.1 - Complaint, P.W.6 - Head Constable registered a case in Crime No.15 of 1996 under Secs.302 and 323, I.P.C. under Ex.P.6 - First Information Report and sent P.W. 1 to Hospital for treatment with memo. P.W.3 - Dr.Ram Manohar gave treatment to P.W.1. Noting contusion on the forehead of P.W.1 - Kuppammal, P.W.3 issued Ex.P.2 -Wound Certificate. 5. Investigation. P.W. 7 - Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation. He inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.5 - Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.7 - Rough Plan. From 7.15 to 10.00 p.m. inquest was held on the body of Annamalai. Witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatdars. 5. Investigation. P.W. 7 - Inspector of Police had taken up the investigation. He inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex.P.5 - Observation Mahazar and Ex.P.7 - Rough Plan. From 7.15 to 10.00 p.m. inquest was held on the body of Annamalai. Witnesses were examined in the presence of Panchayatdars. Ex.P.8 is the Inquest Report. After inquest, body of deceased Annamalai was entrusted to Constable Dhakshinamoorthy for handing over the same to Autopsy. 6. Post-mortem. P.W.4 - Dr.Rajasekaran had conducted Autopsy on the body of deceased Annamalai. He has noted contusion with swelling on the neck region in front and back. There is extravasation of blood into the Sub cutaneous tissues on the neck region. The muscles lacerated. The laceration of Sheeth of Carotid arteries seen. The corniac of the Hyoid bone fractured and the corniac of the thyroid cartilage fractured also seen. The trachea and larynx are congested contains frothy mucous. The cartilages of the larynx and rings of trachea are fractured. Opining that the deceased died of Asphyxia due to strangulation, P.W.4 issued Ex.P.4 - Post-mortem Certificate. 7. On 16.2.1996, P.W.8 - I.O. arrested the accused in Chattiram Naickanoor Junction Road and sent him for judicial custody. Upon completion of formalities of the investigation, Charge Sheet was filed against Accused under Secs.302 and 323, I.P.C. 8. To substantiate the charges against the Accused, in the trial Court, prosecution has examined P.Ws.1 to 8. Exs.P.1 to P.8 are marked. Appellant / Accused was questioned under Sec.313, Crl.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and evidence. Denying all of them, the accused had stated that a false case is foisted against him. 9. Upon consideration of the evidence, the learned Sessions Judge found that the prosecution has proved that the accused caused the death of his grand-father Annamalai by throttling. The accused was also found to have caused injuries to P.W.1 - Kuppammal. The trial Court found that the prosecution case is well supported by prompt recording of Ex.P.1 - Statement by P.W.5 - Village Administrative Officer. The trial Court rejected the defence version that a false case is foisted against the accused. Further, finding that there was no pre-plan or premeditation, the accused was convicted under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. 10. The trial Court rejected the defence version that a false case is foisted against the accused. Further, finding that there was no pre-plan or premeditation, the accused was convicted under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. and sentenced him as aforesaid. 10. Assailing the conviction and finding of guilt, the learned counsel for the Appellant / Accused submitted that P.W.5 - Village Administrative Officer has mechanically recorded Ex.P. 1 - Complaint. Contending that the wife of the Appellant / Accused was deliberately kept away from the Witness Box, the learned counsel submitted that the non-examination of the wife of the accused undermines the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence and erred in convicting the accused under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. 11. Repelling the arguments, the learned Government Advocate Mr.A.N.Thambi Durai (Crl.Side) submitted that P.W.1 - the injured witness has cogently spoken about the occurrence, which is well supported by the medical evidence. The learned Government Advocate has further submitted that the fact that P.W.1 being injured confirms her presence in the scene of occurrence and the trial Court has rightly accepted her evidence to record the finding of guilt and that there is no reason warranting interference. 12. Whether the conviction under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. suffers from any infirmity warranting interference is the short point arising for consideration. 13. The Appellant/Accused being the grandson of the deceased Annamalai and P.W.1 used to frequently quarrel with him demanding for money and to provide for other needs. P.W.2 -Ooran @ Devendiran is the resident of Komutteri. From the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, the conduct of the accused in demanding for money and others and his quarrelsome conduct is well brought out. Since his grand-parents were not showing indulgence to him, quite naturally, the accused must have developed deep resentment towards them. 14. On the date of occurrence, i.e., 14.02.1996 - at the early hours - 5.30 a.m., the accused entered into the house of the deceased and demanded his share of property and attempted to set fire to the house. When he was prevented, the accused assaulted P.W.1 - Kuppammal, causing her injuries. Further angered, the accused instantaneously sat on the chest of the deceased Annamalai and throttled his neck causing his death. On seeing the Villagers, the accused had run away from the scene of occurrence. 15. When he was prevented, the accused assaulted P.W.1 - Kuppammal, causing her injuries. Further angered, the accused instantaneously sat on the chest of the deceased Annamalai and throttled his neck causing his death. On seeing the Villagers, the accused had run away from the scene of occurrence. 15. Case of prosecution revolves around the solitary evidence of P.W.1 - Kuppammal. Though the accused is her grand-son through her elder son, who married Anjali - her grand-daughter through her daughter and both of them are living in the same house. But the close relationship had not deterred the aged woman witness -P.W.1 from deposing the truth. She was in the relentless pursuit of truth by speaking about the actual occurrence. Much evidentiary value is to be attached to the evidence of P.W.1, though she is the Solitary Witness. There is no reason for her to point accusing finger against her own grand-son roping him in the murder case. It would be a travesty of justice to discard her testimony. The trial Court, which had the opportunity of observing the demeanour of P.W.1, found her evidence inspiring the confidence of the Court. Absolutely there is no reason to take a different view. 16. Though P.W.1 - Kuppammal is the Solitary Witness, she is also an injured witness, who sustained injuries in the course of the same transaction. That she sustained injuries on her right forehead is clearly spoken by P.W.3 - Dr.Ram Manohar, who issued Ex.P.2 - Wound Certificate. That P.W.1 sustained injuries in the course of same transaction lends assurance to her presence strengthening her version. 17. Case of prosecution is amply strengthened by registration of First Information Report -Ex.P.6 on the same day i.e. on 14.2.1996. The occurrence was at 5.30 a.m. P.W.1 - Kuppammal approached P.W.5 - Village Administrative Officer at 2.00 p.m. to give a statement on the occurrence. It cannot be said that there was any unreasonable delay. The occurrence was in Javaudu Hills. There is no evidence as to the transport facilities for P.W.1 and others to commute. Further, the accused being the close relative, the parties would have definitely taken time to deliberate upon the same whether to lodge the complaint of not. It cannot be said that there was any unreasonable delay. The occurrence was in Javaudu Hills. There is no evidence as to the transport facilities for P.W.1 and others to commute. Further, the accused being the close relative, the parties would have definitely taken time to deliberate upon the same whether to lodge the complaint of not. In fact the delay in approaching the Village Administrative Officer (P.W.5) is explained by P.W.1 in Ex.P.1 - Complaint, Naturally, for consulting and collecting the Villagers, P.W. 1 would have taken some time. There is no delay in lodging the complaint and even if there is any delay, it is properly explained by the prosecution. 18. Case of prosecution and the oral evidence of P.W.1 - Kuppammal on the overt act of the Appellant/Accused in causing the death of Annamalai by throttling is further strengthened by the medical evidence. P.W.4 - Dr.Rajasekaran has conducted Autopsy on the body of Annamalai. During Autopsy, P.W.4 has noted the external injuries - A contusion with swelling on the neck region in front and back. On dissection - There is extravasation of blood into the Sub cutaneous tissues on the neck region. The muscles lacerated. The laceration of Sheeth of Carotid arteries seen. The corniac of the Hyoid bone fractured and the corniac of the thyroid cartilage fractured also seen. The trachea and larynx are congested contains frothy mucous. The cartilages of the larynx and rings of trachea are fractured. P.W.4 has opined that the deceased “died of Asphyxia due to strangulation”. Thus the medical evidence and opinion evidence of P.W.4 also strengthens the prosecution case. 19. That accused is named to be the assailant in Ex.P.8 - Inquest Report is an evidence of strong character against the accused. By overwhelming evidence, the prosecution has satisfactorily established that the Appellant/Accused is responsible for causing the death of his grand-father Annamalai, who was aged 65 years. The accused was acquitted under Sec.302, I.P.C.; but convicted under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. The occurrence was in the early hours when the accused entered into the house of his grand-parents, questioning them. At the time of occurrence, his wife was away. The accused was under the frustration. He was affected on the feeling that he is not being cared for. That deep resentment towards his grand-parents was manifested in the early hours of the fateful day. At the time of occurrence, his wife was away. The accused was under the frustration. He was affected on the feeling that he is not being cared for. That deep resentment towards his grand-parents was manifested in the early hours of the fateful day. The accused is not a cultured person; but a hill-tribe. He was addicted to drinks. He reacted to the interference of his grand-father. He sat on the chest of his grand-father Annamalai pressing his neck. Any minimal compression on the neck would have sufficient to cause the death of an aged man like deceased Annamalai. Considering that the Appellant/Accused is a hill-tribe and his other background, the sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment of five years is reduced to four years. 20. Therefore, the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.No.76 of 1996 (Dated: 25.6.1997) convicting the Appellant/Accused under Sec.304, Part II, I.P.C. is confirmed. The period of sentence of five years Rigorous Imprisonment is reduced to four years and this appeal is partly allowed accordingly. 21. The trial Court is directed to take immediate steps for securing the accused to commit him to prison for serving the remaining period of sentence.