JUDGMENT : 1. This Criminal Original Petition has been filed seeking to quash the proceedings in PRC No.1 of 2017, pending on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem. 2. The respondent Police registered an FIR in Cr.No.57 of 2017 on 06.02.2017, under Section 174 of Cr.P.C, based on the complaint given by the 2nd respondent to the effect that his father was assaulted by the accused persons on 05.02.2017 at about 2.00 p.m., and he died on the same day at 7.00 p.m. The Investigating Officer who took up the investigation, altered the FIR for an offence under Section 304 IPC. On completion of the investigation a Final Report was filed before the Court below for an offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. The Final Report was taken on file by the Court below in PRC No.1 of 2017, and thereafter the case was committed to the Principal Sessions Court. While this case was pending, it is reported by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Sessions Court has framed charges against the petitioners for an offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. 3. The case as projected by the prosecution in the Final Report is that on 05.02.2017, at about 2.00 p.m, the deceased Muthu, went to SMS Kal Quary to play Cards with his local friends, which is his usual practice. The said Muthu was playing rummy with the accused persons for stakes. While playing , all of them consumed liquor, and all of them were in an inebriatedstate. While so, the deceased Muthu had exhibited "wrong show" and the accused persons felt that they have been cheated. Therefore, they got angry and started beating the deceased Muthu with their hands and stone, and Muthu fell on the ground. This was intervened by one Angamuthu. After the incident, the accused persons left the scene of occurrence and the deceased Muthu left to his house. Thereafter, the deceased Muthu died at about 7.00 p.m on the same day. The prosecution on the basis of the statement recorded from the witnesses and also on the basis of the Postmortem Certificate given by the doctor came to the conclusion that the accused persons have committed a murder in furtherance of a common intention, and therefore, a Final Report came to the filed for an offence under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners brought to the notice of the Court the statements given by the witnesses. The learned counsel heavily relied upon the Postmortem Certificate issued by the doctor and also the statement recorded from the doctor by the Investigating Officer and submitted that a reading of the entire materials, does not make out an offence under Section 302 of IPC. The learned counsel would submit that the doctor had made a categorical statement before the Investigating Officer that the deceased died due to Coronary Artery Heart Disease and consumption of Ethyl alcohol and the same is also reflected in the Postmortem Certificate that has been filed along with the Final Report. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the Court below went wrong in framing a charge under Section 302 of IPC and the same has to be interfered and set aside by this Court. The learned counsel also relied uponthe judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Harish Chandra Prasad Mani and Others .Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in [ (2007) 15 SCC 494 ], in order to substantiate the grounds taken by him. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondent Police would submit that the Postmortem Certificate as well as the statement given by the doctor, reveals the fact that the deceased has sustained nearly 10 injuries all over his body and the doctor has also spoken about the same by pointing out to the multiple injuries. Therefore, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is sufficient material available on record to frame charges under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC, and the petitioners will have to establish their defense only during the course of the trial and there is no ground to interfere with the proceedings at this stage. 6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side. At this stage of the proceedings, this Court has to see if there is any material for the Court below to frame a charge under Section 302 of IPC against the petitioners. 7. The respondent Police have examined nearly 10 witnesses in this case. LW-1 and LW-2, are the sons of the deceased, LW-3 is the daughter of the deceased, and LW-4 is the wife of the deceased. 7. The respondent Police have examined nearly 10 witnesses in this case. LW-1 and LW-2, are the sons of the deceased, LW-3 is the daughter of the deceased, and LW-4 is the wife of the deceased. None of these witnesses had seen the occurrence and they have all spoken about the death of the deceased on 05.02.2017 at 7.00 p.m, while the deceased was sleeping inside the house in a cot. LW-5 is a relative of the deceased who is a mere hearsay witness. The most relevant witnesses in this case are LW-6, LW-7, LW-8, LW-9, LW-10 and LW-11. These are the witnesses who were present in the scene of occurrence and who had separated the deceased from the accused persons, when he was attacked and had sent the deceased person to his house. 8. A cumulative reading of the statements of all these witnesses would reveal the fact that the petitioners and the deceased Muthu are known to each other and were in the habit of playing Cards for stake. It is also seen that all of them consumed liquor and were in an inebriated state. Even after the incident, it is seen that the deceased Muthu by himself had gone away from the scene of occurrence to his house without any body's help and thereafter had slept in the cot inside the house and had died subsequently at about 7.00 p.m. Therefore, it is not a case of instantaneous death of the deceased and it must be seen whether there are any materials to establish that the death of the deceased was caused only due to the attack made by the petitioners. In other words the causal connection between the incident and the death must be established with prima facie material by the prosecution, in order to sustain the charge of murder. 9. In this regard, the statement given by the postmortem doctor and the Postmortem Certificate, gains a lot of significance. The postmortem doctor viz; Dr.K.Gokula Ramanan, has stated as follows, when he was examined by the Investigating Officer: “TAMIL” 1/Right side of HIP M-3X1 Cms. 2) Back of Right side of HIP M - 1X1 Cms. 3) Lower Aspect of Right Side of Chest M- 1X1 Cms. The postmortem doctor viz; Dr.K.Gokula Ramanan, has stated as follows, when he was examined by the Investigating Officer: “TAMIL” 1/Right side of HIP M-3X1 Cms. 2) Back of Right side of HIP M - 1X1 Cms. 3) Lower Aspect of Right Side of Chest M- 1X1 Cms. 4) Upper Aspect of Right side of Chest M-1X0.5 Cms, 5) Right side of Forehead M-0.6X0.5 Cms, 6) Left side of Upper Aspect of Nose M-0.5X0.5 Cms, 7) Top of Right Shoulder M -1.5X1 Cms. 8) Bite marks Seen over the outer Aspect of left side of Chest below the left Axilla 9) Contusion over outer Aspect of left side of Chest M-5X3X0.5 Cms 10) Multiple Small Abrasions over back of left elbow “TAMIL” The Deceased would appear to have died due to CORONARY ARTERY HEART DISEASE, with evidence of Multiple Injuries and consumption of Ethyl alcohol “TAMIL” 10. It will also be relevant to extract the final opinion given by the postmortem doctor which is extracted hereunder: External Examinations: Bluish Discolourisation of Finger Nails INJURIES : Dark Reddish Abrasions Over 1. Right side of HIP M-3X1 Cms. 2. Back of right side of HIP M-1X1 Cms. 3. Lower aspect of right side of Chest M-1X1 Cms. 4. Upper aspect of right side of Chest M-1X0.5 Cms. 5. Right side of Forehead M-0.6X0.5 Cms. 6. Left side of upper aspect of Nose M - 0.5X0.5 Cms. 7. Top of right Shoulder M- 1.5X1 Cms. 8. Bite marks seen over the outer aspect of left side of Chest below the left axilla. 9. Contusion over outer aspect of left side of Chest M-5X3X0.5Cms. 10. Multiple small abrasions over back of left Elbow. Internal Examination : O/D HEAD : Scalp contusion over left temporal region M- 4X3X0.5 Cms over right parieto temporal region. Vault-membranes-intact . Brain - Edematous C/S Pale. Base of Skull - intact. O/D NECK:- Neck structures - Normal, Hyoid Bone intact. O/D THORAX : RIB CAGE - INTACT. HEAT - ENLARGED, a GREYISH WHITE PATCH SEEN OVER ANTERIOR SURGACE FO LEFT VENTRICLE M-3X1.5X0.5 Cms with surrounding hyperemia. C/s Chambers contained clotted blood. Both coronary ostias narrowed. Left ventricular hypertrophy. Multiple atheromatous plaques seen over root of aorta and branches of coronaries. Lungs - edematous C/S pink fine frothy fluid oozed out. O/D ABDOMEN :- Stomach contained 400 gms of partially digested food particles with no specific odour. Mucosa - C/s congested. C/s Chambers contained clotted blood. Both coronary ostias narrowed. Left ventricular hypertrophy. Multiple atheromatous plaques seen over root of aorta and branches of coronaries. Lungs - edematous C/S pink fine frothy fluid oozed out. O/D ABDOMEN :- Stomach contained 400 gms of partially digested food particles with no specific odour. Mucosa - C/s congested. Liver, Spleen and both kidneys - Normal in size C/s congested. Bladder - empty pelvis and spinal column - Intact. VISCERA PRESERVED AND SENT FOR CHEMICAL ANALYSIS. FINAL OPINION I am furnishing my Final Opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased referred to above based on the Chemical Examiners Report. FINAL OPINION: The deceased would appear to have died due to CORONARY ARTERY HEART DISEASE, with evidence of Multiple Injuries and Consumption of Ethyl Alcohol. 11. It is clear from the statement given by the postmortem doctor in the Postmortem Report that the deceased had died due to Coronary Artery Heart Disease, which in common parlance is called as heart attack. The most common cause of Coronary Artery Heart Disease is vascular injury with cholesterol plaque build up in the arteries. Reduced blood flow occurs when one or more of the arteries becomes partially or completely blocked. One of the main risk factors of Coronary Artery Heart Disease is excessive alcohol consumption. Even a emotional stress can result in a Coronary Artery Heart Disease. 12. The postmortem doctor talks about the Coronary Artery Heart Disease, evidence of multiple injuries and consumption of ethyl alcohol to be the cause of the death of the deceased in the Postmortem Report. In the statement given to the Investigating Officer, the postmortem doctor specifically states that the death might have happened due to the emotional stress that arose out of the incident and also high blood pressure experienced by the deceased after the incident. 13. What remains to be seen at this stage is whether on all the above said materials that are available, the Court below can frame a charge for an offence under Section 302 IPC against the petitioners. 14. The distinction between a culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. A comparative table of Section 299 and Section 300 of IPC is extracted herein below for easy reference. 14. The distinction between a culpable homicide amounting to murder and culpable homicide not amounting to murder has been dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various decisions. A comparative table of Section 299 and Section 300 of IPC is extracted herein below for easy reference. 299 - Culpable Homicide 300 - Amounting to Murder Intention:- (a) With the intention of causing death. (1) With the intention of causing death. (b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. (2) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. (3) With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Knowledge: (c) With the knowledge that he is likely to cause death. 15. The materials available on record does not fall within the four limbs of Section 300 IPC. The same will be clear from the injuries recorded by the doctor during the Postmortem. The injuries as extracted herein above are simple injuries without any serious corresponding internal injuries. In other words none of these injuries had caused the death of the deceased Muthu. If the case does not fall within the four limbs of Section 300 IPC, it is not culpable homicide amounting to a murder. 16. This Court has to next see whether the act of he accused persons will amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder deserving to be punished under Section 304(i) or (ii) of IPC. In order to bring in a case under this Clause, the Court has to see whether the 2nd or the 3rd Clause under Section 299 IPC has been made out by the prosecution. In the facts and circumstances of the case and based on the materials available on record, the act of the petitioners will not fall even within the 2nd or 3rd limb of Section 299 IPC. Whether by employing the test of intention or the test of knowledge, there are absolutely no materials to connect the injuries sustained by the deceased and the actual cause of his death. Whether by employing the test of intention or the test of knowledge, there are absolutely no materials to connect the injuries sustained by the deceased and the actual cause of his death. The final opinion very clearly states that the deceased died out of Coronary Artery Heart Disease and admittedly the deceased had consumed ethyl alcohol which is clear from the viscera report prepared by the Forensic Department at Salem. If the deceased had died due to the emotional stress he suffered after the incident, that will not automatically result in a charge of murder against the accused persons. Therefore, this Court finds that there are absolutely no materials to frame a charge against the petitioners for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. 17. For this purpose it will be relevant to rely upon the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners in Harish Chandra Prasad Mani and Others .Vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in [ (2007) 15 SCC 494 ].The relevant potion of the judgment is extracted here under. "8. We have carefully perused the entire record placed before us and find that there is not even an iota of evidence or any material on record against the appellants. It is true that at this stage it is not necessary that the complainant or prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but at least there must be some material on the basis of which cognizance is taken and summon is issued. Cognizance cannot be taken merely on suspicion as has evidently been done in this case. 9. The death certificate dated 12.10.2001 in respect of the deceased Rajnish Kumar was issued by the Medical Officer of Brindavan Hospital & Research Centre, Hazaribagh, which states that the cause of death is Cardio Respiratory Arrest. 10. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the deceased had no history of cardiac problems. It is well known even persons with no history of heart problem can suffer a heart attack and can die. Moreover in the present case the learned counsel for the appellant has shown us the medical reports of the cardiologist of Patna which show that the deceased Rajnish Kumar was a patient of severe hypertension (blood pressure) for a very long period. Hence, it cannot be said that Rajnish Kumar had no medical problems which could lead to his heart attack. Hence, it cannot be said that Rajnish Kumar had no medical problems which could lead to his heart attack. It is well known that blood pressure, diabetes, is a silent killer. 11. The complainant has alleged that Rajnish Kumar was killed by poisoning, but there is no iota of material that any poison was administered to Rajnish Kumar. There is nothing in the medical evidence showing that the dead body of Rajnish Kumar had any poisoning in it. It appears that Rajnish Kumar had vomited in the hospital when he was admitted, but the Police did not take any sample of the vomit for sending it to some laboratory for chemical analysis where it could have been established whether he had been given any poison. It appears to us that cognizance has been taken on pure conjectures and surmises. 12. It is well-settled by a series of decisions of this Court that cognizance cannot be taken unless there is at least some material indicating the guilt of the accused vide R.P. Kapur vs. State of Punjab (1960) 3 SCR 388 , State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992) Suppl (1) SCC 335, Janta Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary (1992) 4 SCC 305 , Raghubir Saran (Dr) vs. State of Bihar (1964) 2 SCR 336 , State of Karnataka vs. M. Devendrappa (2002) 3 SCC 89 and Zandu Pharmaceutical Works Ltd. vs. Mohd. Saraful Haque (2005) 1 SCC 122 . 13. In the present case, there is not even an iota of material indicating the guilt of the accused persons. It is true that at the stage of taking cognizance adequacy of evidence will not be seen by the Court, but there has to be at least some material implicating the accused, and cognizance cannot be taken merely on the basis of suspicion as it appears to have been done in the present case. To take a contrary view would only lead to harassment of people". 18. From the above judgment, it is clear that cognizance cannot be taken unless there is at least some material indicating the guilt of the accused and cognizance cannot be taken on pure conjectures and surmises. This Court is of the considered view that the Court below has taken cognizance of the Final Report and framed a charge under Section 302 of IPC against the petitioners without there being any material brought forth by the prosecution. This Court is of the considered view that the Court below has taken cognizance of the Final Report and framed a charge under Section 302 of IPC against the petitioners without there being any material brought forth by the prosecution. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be made to undergo the ordeal of trial for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. 19. This Court however finds prima facie material against the petitioners for an offence under Section 323 and 324 of IPC r/w Section 34 IPC. Therefore, the petitioners will have to necessarily face the trial for these offences before the concerned Magistrate Court. This Court is not inclined to quash the entire Final Report since there are prima facie material against the petitioners for causing hurt to the deceased person in furtherance of a common intention. 20. In the result, the charge framed by the Court below for an offence under Section 302 IPC is hereby set aside. The Court below is directed to send the entire case records to the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate Court to enable the said Court to frame appropriate charges against the petitioners, based on the materials collected by the prosecution. It is left open to the petitioners to raise all their defense in the course of trial, before the concerned Magistrate Court. Accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.