JUDGMENT (P.DEVADASS, J.) 1. The appellant is accused in S.C.No.189 of 2008 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.IV), Ponneri. For convenience sake, in this judgment, the appellant will be referred as accused. 2. On 15.09.2010, the Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to life and fined him Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. 3. The prosecution case in brief is as follows: (i) Door No.30, situate in Sivaraj Iind Cross Street, Kannadapalayam, Puzhal belongs to P.W.7 Rajini. In the upstairs, one portion was let out to the accused and the other portion was let out to deceased Karthikeyan. P.W.1 Vijaya is his wife. As between the accused and Karthikeyan, there were frequent quarrels. Bad blood was brewing between them. (ii) On 7.04.2007, at about 9.45 p.m., quarrel arose between Karthikeyan and the accused. P.W.1 and her brother P.W.2 Selvam were also present. Accused had beaten Karthikeyan. P.Ws.1 and 2 intervened. However, the accused pushed Karthikeyan from the terrace. He had fallen down and his head hit on the cement floor on ground. He sustained head injury. The entire occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.1 and 2. (iii) The injured was rushed to Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai. P.W.13 -Dr.Dinakar Moses declared him already dead (See Ex.P6 Accident Register Copy). Hospital intimation was sent to Puzhal police station. P.W.1 gave Ex.P1 complaint to P.W.15 Shankar, Sub Inspector of Police. He registered a case in Crime No.191 of 2007. He sent the Express F.I.R. (Ex.P8) to the Court and copies of the same to superior officers. (iv) P.W.16 Ravi, Inspector, took up his investigation. He visited the scene place. In the presence of P.W.4 -Chandrasekaran and Shankar, P.W.16 prepared Ex.P3 Observation Mahazar. Drew Ex.P9 rough sketch. Recovered M.O.1 - blood stained sand and M.O.2 - cement portion under Ex.P2 mahazar. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (v) At the Mortuary, in the presence of panchayatdars, P.W.16 conducted inquest on the dead body of Karthikeyan (Ex.P10 inquest report). P.W.16 requested the doctor to conduct post mortem. Drew Ex.P9 rough sketch. Recovered M.O.1 - blood stained sand and M.O.2 - cement portion under Ex.P2 mahazar. He has examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. (v) At the Mortuary, in the presence of panchayatdars, P.W.16 conducted inquest on the dead body of Karthikeyan (Ex.P10 inquest report). P.W.16 requested the doctor to conduct post mortem. (vi) P.W.14 Dr.V.Sathyamurthy dissected the dead body and found the following injuries: (i) Oblique 6 x 1 cm upper third of right leg (ii) Horizontal 5 x 1 cm upper third of right leg Lacerations: (i) Oblique 4 x 0.5 x bone deep lower third front of right leg (ii) Oblique 2 x 0.5 x bone deep on left side occipital region which is 4 cm below and outerwards of occipital protuberance. Abrasions: On dissection of scalp: Extensive contusion left side occipital region of scalp tissue On further dissection: Extensive contusion on right side fronto parietal lobe of brain and extensive contusion of cerebellum On further dissection: An oblique fissure fracture 7 cm long on right side occipital bone and right posterior cranial fossa (vii) P.W.14 doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of head injury. (See Ex.P7 post mortem certificate) (viii) On 09.04.2007, at about 5 a.m., at the Kavangarai bus stop, P.W.16 arrested the accused. In the presence of P.W.6 Lenin Rajkumar and Ravi, P.W.16 recorded Ex.P11 confessional statement of the accused. In pursuance of that, near a channel in Vijaya Nagar, in Puzhal, the accused produced M.Os.4 to 6 blood stained lungi, shirt and banian. P.W.16 seized them under Ex.P12 mahazar. He had produced the accused before the Court for judicial custody. P.W.16 examined P.W.14. Concluding his investigation, P.W.16 filed the Final Report for an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 4. To substantiate the charge, prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16, marked Exs.P1 to P14 and exhibited M.Os.1 to 6. 5. When the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he denied his complicity in this case. He did not examine any witness nor produce any document. 6. The accused has filed a statement under Section 314 Cr.P.C., wherein he had refuted the allegations made against him. He had stated that the deceased was a limping man. On the occurrence day, he had slipped from the terrace and got injured. On humanatarian ground, he took him in his auto to the hospital. 6. The accused has filed a statement under Section 314 Cr.P.C., wherein he had refuted the allegations made against him. He had stated that the deceased was a limping man. On the occurrence day, he had slipped from the terrace and got injured. On humanatarian ground, he took him in his auto to the hospital. However, due to previous enmity, he has been implicated in this case. 7. Mr.R.Rajasekaran, learned counsel for the accused would contend that the deceased was a limping man, because of that, he had an accidental fall from the terrace. P.Ws. 1 and 2 cannot be relied on. Even taking the allegations as such, at the most, it would warrant an offence under Section 323 I.P.C. and not an offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 8. Mr.V.M.R.Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the occurrence had been witnessed by P.Ws. 1 and 2. The deceased had extensive head injury. The nature of injury exhibits that the accused wanted death of the deceased to happen. 9. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the accused as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have scanned the evidence on record and gone through the findings of the trial Court. 10. On 7.04.2007, at about 10.25 p.m., deceased Karthikeyan, husband of P.W.1 Vijaya was brought to the Government Stanley Hospital, Chennai and he was declared already dead by P.W.13 Dr.Dinakar Moses. P.W.14, Dr.Sathyamoorthy, who conducted post mortem, opined that he died due to head injury (See Ex.P7 Post mortem Certificate). Thus, the deceased died not in a natural way. It was due to homicidal violence. 11. This case is based on the evidence of eye witnesses viz., P.Ws. 1 and 2. Though motive is not necessary in a case based on the evidence of eye witnesses, existence of strained relationship between the two tenants of P.W.7 Rajini viz., accused and the deceased has been established by the evidence of neighbours, namely, P.Ws.5, 8, 9 and 10 Kannaiyan, Sulochana, Meena and Packiyalakshmi. In fact, P.W.7 fed up with their frequent quarrel, asked the accused and the deceased to vacate his house. 12. In these circumstances, on 7.4.2007, at about 9.45 p.m., quarrel arose between the accused and the deceased in the upstair potion, which is about 8 feet height from the ground level. In fact, P.W.7 fed up with their frequent quarrel, asked the accused and the deceased to vacate his house. 12. In these circumstances, on 7.4.2007, at about 9.45 p.m., quarrel arose between the accused and the deceased in the upstair potion, which is about 8 feet height from the ground level. P.Ws.1 and 2 Vijaya and Selvam in their evidence have consistently testified that the quarrel took place between the accused and the deceased. They were specific in their evidence that the accused had beaten the deceased. When they have ventured to prevent it, the accused had pushed the deceased from the upstair. As already stated, the deceased had suffered head injury. 13. The defence tried to show that the deceased had fatal injury due to accidental fall. In their lengthy cross examination, not even a suggestion to that effect to P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.16. For the first time, this sentence is found in the statement filed by the accused under Section 314 Cr.P.C. The evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is consistent and very clear as to the manner of overt act mentioned in Ex.P1 -complaint. The argument that his death was due to accidental fall is not based on any evidence. Thus, it is unsustainable. 14. The recorded evidence shows that already there was strained relationship between the deceased and the accused, in this backdrop of the matter, on the fateful day, the occurrence had taken place. P.Ws.1 and 2 have clearly spoken to about the manner of occurrence. No dent has been made in the lengthy cross-examination of P.Ws.1 and 2. In the facts and circumstances, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 can be relied on. 15. In view of the foregoings, we concur with the finding of the Trial Court that the accused had pushed the deceased from the terrace and thus he is responsible for his death. 16. In view of the arguments advanced by both sides, it becomes necessary to find out what offence is made out. 17. Prior to the occurrence, there was scuffle between the accused and the deceased. It was spoken to by P.W.1. herself. There were exchange of heated words. There was sudden quarrel between both sides. There was no premeditation. The accused was not possessed of any weapon. 17. Prior to the occurrence, there was scuffle between the accused and the deceased. It was spoken to by P.W.1. herself. There were exchange of heated words. There was sudden quarrel between both sides. There was no premeditation. The accused was not possessed of any weapon. Thus, in the course of a sudden quarrel, in the heat of passion, the accused had pushed the deceased from the terrace, which is about 8 feet height from the ground. 18. Nature of injury has been spoken to by P.W.14. It is deep head injury, which caused his death. Thus, the accused had the knowledge as to the likelihood of his death by his such overt act. 19. In the facts and circumstances, since it falls under Exception IV to Section 300 I.P.C. it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. So, the accused is punishable under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. Thus, the accused is guilty under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and not under Section 302 I.P.C. 20. In the result, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 I.P.C. and the life sentence awarded to him are set aside. Instead, he is convicted under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment. The fine of Rs.5,000/- with default sentence imposed on him by the Trial Court is sustained. The appellant is entitled to set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. To the extent indicated above, the appeal is allowed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.