Judgment :- This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment in S.C.No.431 of 2000 on the file of IV Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. The accused was charged under Section 302 of IPC on the complaint preferred by P.W.1, the father of the victim. 2. The case was registered in Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.284 of 1999. The learned X Metropolitan Magistrate, on appearance of the accused on summon furnished copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C. to the accused since the case is triable exclusively by a Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate has committed the case to the Court of Sessions under Section 209 Cr.P.C. for trial. The learned Sessions Judge, Chennai, after summoning the accused had framed charge under Section 302 of IPC and when questioned the accused, the accused pleaded not guilty. 3. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 10 were examined. Exs.P1 to P16 were exhibited and M.Os.1 to 4 were marked. 4. P.W.1 is the Central Government servant. According to him, his wife is also employed as a teacher in Donbosco School and that he has been blessed with two daughters. The first daughter who is the Mary Petport, a trainee Officer in Air India at the time of occurrence and the second daughter Veronica is the victim in this case and the accused is his nephew. According to P.W.1, he had preferred a complaint to the telephone department on 2. 1999 in connection with the snag in his telephone and in this connection he came to his house on 2. 1999 at about 4.15 p.m. to check whether any steps have been taken by the telephone department on the complaint preferred by him on 2. 1999. But he found that the outer door of his house at Anna Nagar West, was found locked. Since there was no response inspite of his repeated pressing the calling bell. The neighbours Padmini and the wife of Ramamurthy came to his help and with the help of employees of PWD (PW5), the outer door was opened from inside and after entering into the drawing room, he found the door in the dinning hall was also locked and he knocked at the door of the dinning hall continuously for five minutes. The neighbours Padmini and the wife of Ramamurthy came to his help and with the help of employees of PWD (PW5), the outer door was opened from inside and after entering into the drawing room, he found the door in the dinning hall was also locked and he knocked at the door of the dinning hall continuously for five minutes. After a while, the said door was opened by the accused and he entered into the bed room through the dinning hall, he saw his daughter Veronica was lying on the bed and that the accused was trying to escape from the house. Immediately, he caught hold of the accused and enquired about what had happened. The accused had informed P.W.1 that he had strangulated his daughter and also twisted her hand and pushed her on the ground. Immediately with the help of his neighbours Padmini and Thilagam, he took his daughter to Sundaram Hospital, Anna Nagar in an Ambassador car and on admission, the doctors informed him that the condition of Veronica was very serious and the accused ran away from the hospital. On 12. 1999 P.W.1 has preferred ExP1 complaint with Thirumangalam Police Station but her daughter died without responding to the treatment on 12. 1999 at 11.00 a.m. He has identified M.O.1 to M.O.4 are the wearing apparels of the deceased. He would admit that the has signed in the search list ExP2. 4a) P.W.2 is the uncle of P.W.1 After hearing about the occurrence, he had proceeded to Sundaram Hospital on 2. 1999 at about 6.00 p.m. and saw the victim with injuries on the neck. He has deposed that what P.W.1 has narrated to him about the occurrence. He has also one of the witnesses to ExP2 search list. 4b) P.W.3 is Tmt. Thilagam, a neighbour of P.W1. She has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 about the occurrence and also about the admission of the victim in the hospital. 4c) P.W.6 is the doctor who had admitted the victim on 2. 1999 at about 4.47 p.m. and issued ExP5 accident register. 4d) P.W.7 is the doctor who had treated the victim on 2. 1999 and issued ExP7 wound certificate. As per ExP7 the following injuries were noted on the victim. 1) Superficial abrasion on the right side of the neck. 1999 at about 4.47 p.m. and issued ExP5 accident register. 4d) P.W.7 is the doctor who had treated the victim on 2. 1999 and issued ExP7 wound certificate. As per ExP7 the following injuries were noted on the victim. 1) Superficial abrasion on the right side of the neck. 2) Small abrasion on the left ankle 3) Superficial abrasion on the left fore arm Since the pulse rate was very low, the victim was transferred to ICU ward. According to P.W.7, the victim’s brain was also effected. 4e) P.W.9 is the doctor who had conducted post mortem on the corpse of the victim Veronice.ExP9 is the post mortem report. P.W.9 has noted following injuries on the corpse. 1. Four old scar each 0.5 cm over left cheek and over left side of neck. 2. Four old scar each 0.5 cm over right side of upper neck. On dissection of the neck region, he found that 11 cm x 3 cm contusion over center of the neck over thyroid cartilage. Hyoid bone was found in tact. The lungs were found reddish in colour. Oedematouos on both upper and lower lobe of the lungs seen. Fluid blood in all chambers of the heart found. Water accumulation was seen on both lobes of the brain. The doctor has opined that she died due to compression of the neck. 4f) P.W.10 is the then Inspector Police Thirumangalam Police Station who had registered the case in Thirumanagalam Police Station Cr.No.284 of 1999 under Section 302 of IPC on the basis of the complaint Ex P1 preferred by P.W.1. Ex P10 is the first information report. Immediately on the date of occurrence i.e. on 12. 1999 at about 3.10 p.m, he proceeded to Sundaram Hospital and saw the victim who was in an unconscious stage and had seized wearing apparels of the victim under a Mahazar Ex P3 in the presence of P.W.4. Thereafter, P.W.10 had arrested the accused at 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar at 16.30 hours on the same day who was identified to them by P.W.1. He has recorded voluntary confession statement of the accused. Ex P11 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused. P.W.10 thereafter went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazar Ex P4 in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. He has recorded voluntary confession statement of the accused. Ex P11 is the admissible portion of the confession statement of the accused. P.W.10 thereafter went to the place of occurrence and prepared observation Mahazar Ex P4 in the presence of P.W.4 and another witness. Exs P12 and P13 are the rough sketches drawn by P.W.10 in the presence of the same witnesses. P.W.10 had received the death intimation of the victim Veronica on 12. 1999 at about 11.15 p.m. Ex P6 is the death certificate issued by the doctor Thiru Praveen of Sundaram Medical Foundation which was spoken to by P.W.6. P.W.10 has altered the charge from Section 307 to Section 302 of IPC and sent Express first information report to the concerned officials including the Judicial Magistrate. P.W.10 had conducted inquest on the corpse of Veronica between 11.45 hours and 13.15 hours. Ex P15 is the inquest report. Ex P16 is the analyst’s report. The corpse was sent to postmortem through P.W.3 who has identified the corpse to the post mortem doctor. After postmortem, he had handed over the body to P.W.1. P.W.10 has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. After completing the formalities, P.W.10 had filed the chargesheet against the accused on 22. 1999 under Section 302 of IPC. 5. When incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, the accused would deny his complicity with the crime. 6. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Sessions Judge has come to a conclusion that the accused is liable to be convicted under Section 304 (2) of IPC and accordingly convicted and sentenced the accused to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment and a fine Rs.1,000/- with default sentence. Aggrieved against the findings of the learned trial Judge, the accused has preferred this appeal. 7. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the conviction and sentence of the learned trial Judge is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in the memorandum of appeal? 8. I heard Mr. S. Ashok Kumar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and also Mr. V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and considered their rival submission. .8. The Point: .The learned Senior Counsel Thiru S. Ashok Kumar would submit that he is going to argue the case on merit but he would restrain himself to the sentence awarded by the trial Court. V.R. Balasubramaniam, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State and considered their rival submission. .8. The Point: .The learned Senior Counsel Thiru S. Ashok Kumar would submit that he is going to argue the case on merit but he would restrain himself to the sentence awarded by the trial Court. The learned senior counsel would has the attention of this Court to the age of the accused as well as the victim and also the relationship between the accused and the deceased. The age of the accused is 20 at the time of occurrence and the age of the deceased is also 20 as per the postmortem certificate and there is absolutely no motive for the accused to commit this crime. Even in his answer to question under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused would say that the accident, the occurrence had happened while he and the victim were adversing at the bedroom. Even in Ex P11 confession statement, the accused would say that he had worked in several companies after getting himself as a qualified computer operator, after getting diploma in software management. But he was getting a meagre salary of Rs.1,500/- per mensum and that his working hours is 9.00 a.m. to 5.30 p.m., and he was both physically and mentally upset on the date of occurrence and that on the hopeful day, after seeing noon show film in a theatre, he entered into the uncle’s (P.W.1) house at door No.209/6, Central Revenue Quarters, Anna Nagar and that as usual, he was talking to his cousin Veronica and when she again and again questioned him about his dullness, he caught hold of red hand twisted but in her attempt to escape from the clutches. He deceased her hand and caught hold of the neck and pressed the neck which she in her unconscious. And at that time P.W.1 came from the office and caught hold him red handed. .9. The learned Senior Counsel explaining the circumstances which said and the accused to a charge fors the crime relied on a dictum in State of Karnataka –vs-Muddappa (1999 Supreme Court Cases (cri) 1046 and contended that considering the age of the accused and also the circumstances of the case and that he is his first offender, the provision under the Probation of Offender Act 1958, may be applied to him. The Acts of the said ratio is that the accused in that case was charged under Section 302 IPC was convicted under Section 304 (2) of IPC. Taking into consideration of the single blow inflicted by the accused on the deceased and also on consideration of the provision of Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the provisions under Section 4 of the Probation of offenders Act 1958, the High Court had instead of sentencing him directed to release the accused on admonition. The Apex Court has held that there is no infirmity in the order of the High Court in releasing the accused under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 thereby dismissing the appeal preferred by the State. 10. The learned Senior Counsel relying on Musa Khan and others -vs- State of Maharashtra (1977) 1 Supreme Court Cases, 733) wherein the application of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 by the Court was emphasized as follows: “The Probation of Offenders Act is a social legislation which is meant to reform juvenile offenders so as to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals by providing an educative and reformative treatment to them by the Government. Unfortunately, though the provisions of Section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act are mandatory, the Court do not appear to make wise use of these provisions which is necessary to protect our younger generation from becoming professional criminals, and, therefore, a menace to the society.” The learned Senior Counsel would give much stress on his argument on the ground that the accused is only just completed his teenage and after it is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment then it may pave a way for him to become professional criminal. Even before the date of occurrence, the accused was in employment and he is computer illiterate. Taking into all the circumstances, this Court is of the view that it is a fit case in which the provision under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 can be invoked. 11. Before passing the final judgment, this Court felt to know the mind of P.W.1 who is the father of the victim through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor accordingly met P.W.1 and also produced P.W.1 today before this Court. 11. Before passing the final judgment, this Court felt to know the mind of P.W.1 who is the father of the victim through the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor accordingly met P.W.1 and also produced P.W.1 today before this Court. When this Court asked about the views of P.W.1 in applying the provision of Probation of Offenders Act 1958 to the accused P.W.1 would magnanimously say that he is prepared to give pardon to the accused. Under such circumstances, I am of the view that while confirming the conviction, sentence alone against the accused can be modified. 12. In fine, the appeal is dismissed with the following modification in the sentence alone. The accused is convicted under Section 304(2) of IPC and the accused is directed to be released under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958 for a good conduct of two years, on executing a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten thousand) only with two sureties for the like sum each before the trial Court with an undertaking to appear and receive the sentence whenever called upon during the such period and in the mean time, he shall keep peace and good behaviour, in stead of 3 years rigorous imprisonment. The accused is directed to appear before the trial Court on 5. 2007 to execute the required bond under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act 1958. Registry is directed to inform the committal Court by fax and despatch the records to the trial Court within three days.