Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2137 (MAD)

Arunachalam v. Raja

2019-08-21

B.PUGALENDHI, M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : B. PUGALENDHI, J. 1. These Criminal Appeals have been filed as against the order of acquittal passed by the learned Principal and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli in SC No. 215 of 2015 dated 07.12.2016. 2. Since the judgment challenged in both these appeals are one and the same, they are disposed of by this common judgment. Appeal in Crl.A(MD)No.231 of 2017 has been filed by PW1/ de facto complainant and Appeal in Crl.A(MD)No.442 of 2017 has been filed by the State. 3. The respondent / accused is the sole accused in SC No.215 of 2015 and he was tried for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC. In conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge by order dated 07.12.2016, acquitted the accused that the prosecution has not proved their case beyond reasonable doubt and found him not guilty of the charges framed against him. Aggrieved over the same, PW1 / de facto complainant and the State have filed separate appeals. 4. The brief facts of the prosecution case is as follows: 4.1. The deceased Saravanan Mupidathi was a resident of Anbu Nagar in Nannagaram village and he was running a job centre at Tenkasi. The accused is the uncle's son of PW5 namely Kaviya. The deceased was moving closely with Kaviya, which was objected to by the accused and he was also warned by the accused previously. However, the deceased continued to speak with PW5. 4.2. While so, on 28.07.2014 at about 8.15 am, the deceased was on his way to gym in his motor cycle bearing registration No.TN 76 AA 4354 [MO2] on Nannagaram, near Vetrivinayagar Temple, the accused waylaid him and there was a wordy quarrel between them. The accused by saying that how he can talk to his uncle's daughter, abused him with filthy words and by saying only if you are alive, you will talk to her, attacked him with Aruval [MO1] on his back of the head, around left ear, in front of the right neck and left jaw. PW1 / brother of the deceased along with PW2 and PW3, who were present at near by tea stall rushed to the spot and the accused abused them also with filthy words and also intimidated them with the Aruval. 4.3. PW1 / brother of the deceased along with PW2 and PW3, who were present at near by tea stall rushed to the spot and the accused abused them also with filthy words and also intimidated them with the Aruval. 4.3. PW1 called his friend / PW4, who is also a Teacher, for help and prepared the complaint [Ex.P1] and lodged the same before the Courtallam Police Station at about 9.15 am. The Sub Inspector of Police, Courtallam Police Station [PW16] received the complaint [ExP1] and registered the same in Crime No.245 of 2014, as against the accused for the commission of offence under Sections 341, 294(b), 302 and 506(ii) IPC and handed over the First Information Report [ExP21] to the Grade I Constable [PW14] to it hand over to the Court the and also informed the Inspector of Police [PW17]. 4.4. PW14 had taken the FIR to the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court at Shenkottai and there, she came to know that the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai was on leave and therefore, she went to the Judicial Magistrate, Sivagiri (i/c) and handed over a copy of the FIR on 28.07.2014 at 3.43 pm. 4.5. On receipt of the intimation, the Investigating Officer [PW17] proceeded to the place of occurrence around 10.00 am on 28.07.2014 and prepared the observation mahazar [ExP2] and rough sketch [ExP22] in the presence of PW6 and he also recovered the blood stained earth [MO5] and normal earth [MO6] respectively in Ex.P3 and thereafter, he recovered a Hero Honda dream Motorcycle bearing registration No. TN 76 AA 4354 under a cover of mahazar [Ex.P4]. The motorcycle was also marked as MO2. Thereafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body from 1.30pm and handed over the dead body for postmortem through the Head constable [PW15] and he also examined PW1. 4.6. The Doctor / PW7 conducted autopsy on 28.07.2014 at 3.30 pm and noted down the following injuries: “Injuries: 1. Transversely placed chop wound of size 10 X 5 X 6 cm present in Middle 1 /3 of neck with abraded margins with sharply outlined edges, exposing the laryngeal and hypopharynx, left side carotid artery completely severed 15 ml of blood clot around the left carotid region. Thyroid cartilage broken obliquely, Hyoid bone was intact. 2. Transversely placed chop wound of size 10 X 5 X 6 cm present in Middle 1 /3 of neck with abraded margins with sharply outlined edges, exposing the laryngeal and hypopharynx, left side carotid artery completely severed 15 ml of blood clot around the left carotid region. Thyroid cartilage broken obliquely, Hyoid bone was intact. 2. Oblique chop wound in left mandible at the junction of upper 2/3 and lower 1/3 of size 6 X 3 X 2.5 cm with abraded margins and sharp edges cutting the underlying mandible bone. 3. Lateral Aspect of Neck left side showed 5 X 2 X 5 cm size chop wound Edges are sharp. 4. A Lacerated wound of 2 X 1 X 1.5 cm present below left ear. 5. A Lacerated wound of 0.5 X0.5X 0.5 cm size present in the nape of neck.” 4.7. The internal organs were preserved and sent for chemical analysis. The examination of viscera did not show any poison in the intestine. Finally the Doctor [PW7] gave her opinion that the deceased appears to have died due to multiple chop wounds leading to airway collapse and asphyxia with hemorrhagic shock and due to major artery injury. 4.8. The Investigating Officer [PW17] arrested the accused on 29.07.2014 at about 12.00 noon at Melagaram Bus stop in the presence of Village Administrative Officer [PW12] and Village Assistant Velu. He also recorded confession statement of the accused in the presence of the above witnesses and pursuant to the confession statement a blood stained bill hook [MO1] was recovered from Amalai plants at Rajakularamaperikulam under ExP15. After examination of other witnesses, PW17 has filed a final report before the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai on 28.10.2014 and the same was taken on file in PRC No.16 of 2015, on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai and was committed to the Court of Sessions, Tirunelveli and tried in SC No.215 of 2015, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. 5. During the trial 18 witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution and 23 documents were examined and 7 material objects were produced in support of the prosecution case. 5. During the trial 18 witnesses have been examined on the side of the prosecution and 23 documents were examined and 7 material objects were produced in support of the prosecution case. When the incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 CrPC, the accused denied the same and he also examined the Head Clerk of the District Court, Tirunelveli as defence witness DW1 and High Court Calender 2014 was marked as Ex.D1. 6. In conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge, by judgment dated 07.12.2016 acquitted the accused under Section 235 (1) CrPC that the accused is not guilty for the charges framed against him. Aggrieved over the same, the above appeals have been filed before this Court. 7. Heard Mr.S.Muthumalai Raja learned Counsel for the appellant in CrlA(MD)No.231 of 2017 and Mr.S.Chandrasekar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in CrlA 442 of 2017 and Mr.R.Anand learned Counsel representing the Counsel on record for respondent in both the criminal appeals. 8. In sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the respective Counsel for the appellants are as follows: * The findings recorded by the trial Court in acquitting the accused are unreasonable and palpably wrong and it may also be categorised as perverse. * PWs 1 to 3 are the eye witnesses to the occurrence and they have narrated the incident before the trial Court by establishing the time and occurrence, weapon used and the injuries inflicted on the deceased. However, the trial Court disbelieved the evidence of eye witnesses that they are closely related to the deceased by referring to certain minor contradictions in their evidence. * The trial Court is not correct in disbelieving the evidence of PWs 1 to 3, on the evidence of Photographer [PW13] that he has taken photographs at about 7.00 am and that photographs of the dead body were taken in close shot, from which the place of occurrence could not be identified. * Apart from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 eye witnesses, the prosecution has also established its case, through the arrest of accused and recovery of the weapon [MO1] the blood stained Aruval, pursuant to the confession statement, which was also established through evidence of PW.6. 9. * Apart from the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 eye witnesses, the prosecution has also established its case, through the arrest of accused and recovery of the weapon [MO1] the blood stained Aruval, pursuant to the confession statement, which was also established through evidence of PW.6. 9. Per contra the learned Counsel for the first respondent / accused would vehemently contend that the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 cannot be accepted and they cannot be eye witnesses to the occurrence, since the prosecution case that the occurrence was taken place at 8.15 am, has been shattered on the evidence of PW6 and PW13. The photographer PW13 has specifically stated that he has taken the photographs from the place of occurrence at about 7.00 to 7.30 am on 28.07.2014, much before the time projected by the prosecution. 10. According to the learned Counsel for the accused, PW.1 in his examination has specifically stated that the contents in ExP1 were not written by him. Similarly, the presence of PW2 along with PW1 and the reasons for the witnesses to go the place of occurrence, ie., to drop PW2 at the bus stop is not mentioned in the complaint ExP1 as well as in their statements before PW17. 11. The place of occurrence is highly doubtful, when the tea shop owner PW11 has turned hostile. The presence of tea shop nearby the place of occurrence is not exhibited in the observation mahazar [ExP2] as well as in the rough sketch [ExP22]. Further the photographs were also taken in a close shot without any reference to the place of occurrence, which raised serious doubts to the trial Judge and accordingly, the trial Judge disbelieved the case of the prosecution. 12. According to PW1 on the date of occurrence, on information, Ambulance came to the place of occurrence at about 9.30 am and the body was also taken to the hospital at 10.30 am, while so the inquest said to have conducted by the investigating officer at the place of occurrence from 1.30 pm is nothing, but a false and concocted story. 13. PW1 own brother of the deceased is said to have lifted the deceased, admitted that his dress got stained with blood. PW2 / another eye witness has stated that no one touched the body of the deceased and the investigating agency has not collected any blood stained cloth from PW1. 13. PW1 own brother of the deceased is said to have lifted the deceased, admitted that his dress got stained with blood. PW2 / another eye witness has stated that no one touched the body of the deceased and the investigating agency has not collected any blood stained cloth from PW1. 14. Heard the learned Counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record. 15. The deceased Saravanan Mupidathi was done to death on 28.07.2014 at about 8.15 am and on the complaint of PW1, a case was registered in Crime No.245 of 2014, on the file of the Courtallam Police Station, as against the respondent. According to the prosecution PWs1 to 3 have witnessed the occurrence and the Doctor [PW7], who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, has clearly stated that it is a case of homicidal death. She noted five injuries on the dead body and opined that the deceased appears to have died due to multiple chop wounds, leading to airway collapse and asphyxia with hemorrhage shock due to major artery injuries. The accused was also arrested on 29.07.2014 at 12.00 PM and at his instance the weapon [MO1] was recovered. 16. The trial Court in conclusion of the trial, disbelieved the evidence of the prosecution, acquitted the accused. 16.1. Finding of the trial Court: * The prosecution has not examined any independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence of PWs1 to 3. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 are contradictory to each other. PW.17 / the investigating officer though stated that he examined, some independent witnesses namely Boothathan, Sankaran, Samuthiram, Selvan Kutti and one Raj, none of them was cited as witnesses as well there was no document filed to show that they have been examined by the investigating officer: Our Finding: * The prosecution case cannot be discarded for non examination of the witnesses. The quality of evidence is important than the quantity of the evidence. * The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Appabhai and another Vs State of Gujarat, reported in AIR 1988 SC 696 , wherein in paragraph Nos. 11 and 12, it has been held as follows: 11. ... ... ... It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. 11 and 12, it has been held as follows: 11. ... ... ... It is no doubt true that the prosecution has not been able to produce any independent witness to the incident that took place at the bus stand. There must have been several of such witnesses. But the prosecution case cannot be thrown out or doubted on that ground alone. Experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. The court, therefore, instead of doubting the prosecution case for want of independent witness must consider the broad spectrum of the prosecution version and then search for the nugget of truth with due regard to probability if any, suggested by the accused. The Court, however, must bear in mind that witnesses to a serious crime may not react in a normal manner. Nor do they react uniformly. The horror stricken witnesses at a dastardly crime or an act of egregious nature may react differently. There, course of conduct may not be of ordinary type in the normal circumstances. The Court, therefore, cannot reject their evidence merely because they have behaved or reacted in an unusual manner. In Rana Pratap and Ors. v. State of Haryana 1988 (3) S.C.C. 327 O. Chinnappa Reddy J. speaking for this Court succinctly set out what might be the behaviour of different persons witnessing the same incident. The learned Judge observed; (at p. 330). “Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting for help. Others run away to keep themselves as far removed from the spot as possible. Yet others rush to the rescue of the victim, even going to the extent of counter-attacking the assailants. Every one reacts in his own special way. There is no set rule of natural reaction. To discard the evidence of a witness on the ground that he did not react in any particular manner is to appreciate evidence in a wholly unrealistic and unimaginative way.” 12. There may be still more. Even a man of prowess may become pusillanimous by witnessing a serious crime. In this case, the courts below, in our opinion, have taken into consideration of all those respects and rightly did not insist upon the evidence from other independent witnesses. The prosecution case cannot be doubted or discarded for not examining strangers at the bus stand who might have also witnessed the crime. We, therefore, reject the first contention urged for the appellants. In a recent judgment in the case of Juman and Another Vs State of Bihar, reported in [2017] 11 SCC 85, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: “We have seen in the instant case that the witnesses have vividly deposed about the genesis of the occurrence, the participation and involvement of the accused persons in the crime. The non-examination of the witnesses, who might have been there on the way to hospital or the hospital itself when deceased narrated the incident, would not make the prosecution case unacceptable. Similarly, evidence of any witness cannot be rejected merely on the ground that interested witnesses admittedly had enmity with the persons implicated in the case. The purpose of recoding of the evidence, in any case, shall always be to unearth the truth of the case. Conviction can even be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, if the same inspires confidence. Moreover, prosecution case has been proved by the testimony of the eye-witness since corroborated by the other witnesses of the occurrence. We are constrained to reject the submissions made on behalf of the appellants.” * As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the non examination of the independent witness itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of eye witness. We are constrained to reject the submissions made on behalf of the appellants.” * As laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the non examination of the independent witness itself cannot be a ground to disbelieve the evidence of eye witness. Moreover, in the case on hand, the owner of the tea stall nearby the place of occurrence was examined as PW11 and he admitted that he was having tea stall some years back opposite to the Sericulture office at Tenkasi, he did not support the case of the prosecution and turned hostile. The trial Court instead of disbelieving the case of the prosecution for want of independent witness, ought to have analyzed the evidence in proper perspective. * Even if it is the case of a solitary witness, if the testimony of witness inspires confidence, the conviction can be imposed based on the sole witness. The rules of appreciation of evidence requires that the Court should not arrive at a conclusion by picking up an isolation of sentence of the witness without adverting to the statement as a whole. * It is admitted by PW1 that the contends found in ExP1 complaint is not written by him, even though he has deposed in the chief examination that he wrote the complaint in his house after arrival of PW4, went to the Police Station and lodged the complaint, wherein, he has not narrated the arrival of PW2 to his house and their arrival at the place of occurrence to drop PW2 at the bus stop. * ExP1 is the written complaint, which was also lodged within one hour from the commission of offence. PW1 in his evidence has clearly stated that he sought assistance of his friend PW4 and prepared the complaint ExP1 and lodged the complaint before Police Station. He has specifically admitted that in the chief examination that the hand writing found in ExP1 is that of his handwriting. But, during the cross examination, he made a strange statement that the letters in the complaint are not written by him. However, he has reiterated again that the complaint was written on his own. ExP1 complaint was also attested by PW4. 16.2. But, during the cross examination, he made a strange statement that the letters in the complaint are not written by him. However, he has reiterated again that the complaint was written on his own. ExP1 complaint was also attested by PW4. 16.2. Finding of the trial Court: * The photographer PW13 stated that he has taken photographs between 7.00 am and 7.30 am and as per the evidence of PW6, mahazar witness, at the time of recording the observation mahazar no dead body was seen by him. It is also the evidence of PW1 that about 9.30 am body was taken by him to the hospital. The evidence of PW6 and PW13 shows that the Photographer was asked to take photographs at the place of occurrence from 7.00 am to 7.30 am on 28.07.2014, much before the time of occurrence projected by the prosecution. Our finding: * The Investigating Officer has not taken any steps to photograph the place of occurrence. The photographs taken from the place of occurrence and marked as MO7 is not substantive piece of evidence to decide the case in hand. The photographer [PW13] is a freelance photographer, who is having Studio at Courtallam and his service was availed by the Police on 28.07.2014 to take some photographs on the dead body from the place of occurrence. He was examined on 14.10.2015, nearly after fifteen months from the date of occurrence. During his cross examination, when a question was put to him at what time he had taken the photographs in the morning, he stated that he had no idea about the time. However, when it was asked again, he made a vague statements that it might be between 7.00 am and 7.30 am and this statement cannot be taken as a piece of evidence to disbelieve the eye witness. The place of occurrence is very well established by the prosecution, through the observation mahazar [MO2] and rough sketch [ExP.22]. The blood stained earth [MO5] and ordinary earth [MO6] have been taken from the place of occurrence by the investigating officer [PW17] under a cover of mahazar [ExP3] and MOs 5 and 6 were also sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Lab, Tirunelveli through Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai in ExP8 and the Scientific Officer [PW8] has given a report in ExP9 that human blood was detected in MO5. The composition of MO5 and MO6 were stated in ExP9 as earth mixed with stones and vegetable matters, on which, were dark brown stains and earth mixed with stones and vegetable matter respectively. The Regional Forensic Science Lab in further examination of MOs 5 and 6 would certify in ExP10 that human blood AB was found in MO5 and the same blood group was found in T-shirt [MO3] and Trousers [MO4], which were recovered from the dead body of the deceased from the place of occurrence. * Ex.P2 and Ex.P22 would clearly show that the place of occurrence is front of the Vetri Vinayagar Temple at Pillaiyar kovil street is perpendicular to Courtallam – Tenkasi Road and also near Sericulture Office. * The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 would clearly establish that the occurrence was taken place near Pillaiyarkovil and near by a tea shop. The owner of the tea shop Mr.Krishnan Chettiyar was also examined as PW11, but he turned hostile. However, he would admit that he was having tea shop six years back, in front of Sericulture office on the Courtallam – Tenkasi Road. * The prosecution has established the place of occurrence through the available evidence. However, the trial Judge disbelieved the prosecution case that the place of occurrence has not been established without any doubt, through the photographs marked as MO.7 series. 16.3. Trial Court finding: * The evidence of PW11 shows that he was not having any tea shop near by occurrence place, which raises serious doubt regarding the prosecution case that PWs1 to 3 were having tea near the place of occurrence and they have witnessed the occurrence. Our finding: * As stated supra, PW11 did not support the case of the prosecution. He was treated as hostile. However, he admitted in his chief examination that he was running tea shop in front of Sericulture Office at Tenkasi – Nannagar road. As stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1988 SCC 696 , referred to above that experience reminds us that civilized people are generally insensitive when a crime is committed even in their presence. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. They withdraw both from the victim and the vigilante. They keep themselves away from the Court unless it is inevitable. They think that crime like civil dispute is between two individuals or parties and they should not involve themselves. This kind of apathy of the general public is indeed unfortunate, but it is there everywhere whether in village life, towns or cities. One cannot ignore this handicap with which the investigating agency has to discharge its duties. 16.4. Finding of the trial Court: * PW1 has come up with a case that he used to go for a regular walk at 8.00 am. In the cross examination of PW1 he has stated that he is a Teacher and his school starts at 9.20 am and the Teachers used to reach the school 30 minutes before the starting time. To reach the school from his house it will take 20 minutes and the date of occurrence was on Monday. This raises serious doubt whether there is a possibility for the PW1 to go for a regular walk at 8.00am every day. Our finding: PW.1 has categorically stated that in his evidence that on the date of occurrence, he was on casual leave and that statement has not been contradicted by the defence. 16.5. Finding of the trial Court: It is the concrete evidence of PW1 after occurrence, immediately rushed to the deceased and lifted him and due to the same his dress also stained with blood. But, it is the evidence of PW2 that he has not seen anyone touched the body of the deceased and act of PW2 that though he went to the house of PW1 and has not returned to the place of occurrence or gone to the hospital According to PW2, Police has not examined regarding this case. This evidence also contradicts the evidence of PW1 regarding the facts taken place after the occurrence and raises doubts, whether the evidence of PW1 that he has lifted the body of the deceased and thereafter gone to the police station. This evidence also contradicts the evidence of PW1 regarding the facts taken place after the occurrence and raises doubts, whether the evidence of PW1 that he has lifted the body of the deceased and thereafter gone to the police station. Our finding: * The probable theory made by the accused is that the deceased was having relationship with one Nithya, daughter of Subbaiah, who is a resident of Kottakulam and since the said Nithya was belonging to other community, on account of which, the murder would have been committed and since the accused has assaulted the deceased on previous occasion he has been falsely roped in this case. The accused has admitted that there was a previous enmity between the deceased and the accused and he has also assaulted the deceased earlier. * The accused was also arrested on the next day and the bill hook [MO1] was recovered from him pursuant to his disclosure statement. The admissible portion of the disclosure statement is also marked as ExP14 and the presence of human blood was detected in MO1. The arrest and recovery was also established through the evidence of PW6. The Doctor [PW7] was also admitted the possibility of injuries found on the deceased through weapon MO7. The occurrence was taken place in the broad day light in the public road. 17. The presence of PW2, who is a resident of some other place and he came to PW1 house on the previous day and it was late night, therefore, he stayed in PW1's house and in the morning when PW1 and PW2 proceeded to bus stop, they have witnessed the occurrence from the tea stall. This statement is developed only during the evidence. This is not mentioned either in the complaint or in the statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC. 18. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments has held that FIR is not an encyclopedia and each and every minute details need not be stated. The presence of PW2 in the place of occurrence has been specifically mentioned in ExP1, if there is any failure on the part of the investigating agency to find out the reasons for PW2's presence while examining PW1 and PW2 under Section 161 CrPC. When a specific question is asked during the course of examination, the witnesses are expected to explain the reason for staying over night. When a specific question is asked during the course of examination, the witnesses are expected to explain the reason for staying over night. The failure on the part of the investigating agency to get clarification during his examination under Section 161 CrPC cannot be termed as exaggeration or embellishment. 19. The finding of the trial Court in appreciating the available evidence is not proper and therefore, the order of acquittal is liable to be set aside. The appeals are partly allowed and accordingly, the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court in SC No.215 of 2016, dated 07.12.2016 is set aside. 20. The witness PWs 1 and 2 in their evidence have specifically stated that prior to the occurrence there was a wordy quarrel between the accused and the deceased and they have witnessed the occurrence and they were under the impression that the accused and the deceased were talking casually. The witnesses, who were having tea at a nearby tea shop have witnessed the occurrence, but they have not intercepted that the accused and the deceased were talking casually. Only after sometime, on out of a wordy altercation and out of the sudden provocation the accused is said to have committed the offence and therefore, the accused is found guilty for the commission of offence under Section 304(i) IPC, instead of 302 IPC. 21. With regard to the question of sentence, the accused shall appear before this Court on 28.08.2019, call on 28.08.2019.