JUDGMENT : R.N. MANJULA, J. Prayer: This Criminal Appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 19.12.2012 in S.C. No. 150 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode. 1. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused to set aside the conviction and sentence made in S.C. No. 150 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Erode dated 19.12.2012, as tabulated hereunder: Rank of the accused Provision under which convicted Sentence A1 Section 302 IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo three years simple imprisonment. A1 Section 449 IPC Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo one year simple imprisonment 2. The short facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The appellant/Accused is a resident of the Indira Colony, Konamookanur, Poonachi, Bhavani. The wife of the accused had suspicion on the conduct of the deceased Kanaka that she had an illegal intimacy with her husband. Because of this, on 31.07.2009 at about 17.30 hours a quarrel occurred between the deceased Kanaka and the wife of the accused. In the said quarrel the accused also joined his wife. On seeing this, the deceased Kanaka abused the accused. Agitated over this, the accused attacked the deceased on various parts of her body with a sickle; as a result the deceased died. On a complaint (Ex.P.1) given by the husband of the deceased, a case has been registered in Crime No. 220 of 2009 under Section 302 IPC. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the accused. The committal Court took cognizance of the charge sheet in P.R.C. No. 21/2010 and after observing the due legal formalities charges have been framed against the accused under Sections 449 and 302 IPC and issued the committal proceedings. After the case was committed to the Sessions Court and taken on file, the trial commenced, after complying the legal mandates. 3. On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses have been examined as PWs. 1 to 13 and Exs.P-1 to P-16 and M.Os. 1 to 16 have been marked. On the side of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents have were marked. 4. 3. On the side of the prosecution, 13 witnesses have been examined as PWs. 1 to 13 and Exs.P-1 to P-16 and M.Os. 1 to 16 have been marked. On the side of the accused no witnesses were examined and no documents have were marked. 4. The trial Court upon hearing both sides and on analysing the oral and documentary evidences convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated supra. Challenging the same, the appellant/accused has preferred this Appeal. 5. The complainant Arumugam is the husband of the deceased Kanaka. He was examined as PW-1 and he has stated in his evidence that he is working in Kallakurichi; and the house of the accused is opposite to his house at Attavanai Pudur; a week before the occurrence, the deceased called her husband over phone and told that the wife of the accused was always quarrelling; on 31.07.2009, PW-1 came to the village from his work place and at that time his brother PW-2 and his brother’s son Parthiban were standing in the bus stand; PW-3 Sembannan who came from the opposite direction and informed PW-1 and PW-2 that the accused and his wife were quarrelling with the deceased in the afternoon and during that course the deceased also had abused the accused. By conversing about this PWs. 1 to 3 were walking to the house of PW-1. While they were nearing the house, they heard the noise of PW-1’s wife and hence they rushed to the house. There, they saw the accused cutting the deceased with aruval (M.O.1) and inflicting injuries on the various parts of her body. On seeing PWs. 1 to 3, the accused ran away. PW-1 to PW-3, saw the deceased dying due to her injuries. PW-2 and PW-3 have also corroborated the evidence of PW-1 and stated the same facts about the occurrence. After receiving the viscera report, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem had opined that the deceased had died due to haemorrhage, cut injuries on her neck and shock caused by the several injuries sustained by her. 6. On receiving the complaint (Ex.P.1) from the complainant PW-1, the PW-11 Muniammal, Sub Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station registered the FIR (Ex.P.14) in Crime No. 220 of 2009 under section 302 IPC. In column No. 7 of the F.I.R. the name of the accused and the deceased have been shown as Prakash and Kanaka respectively. 6. On receiving the complaint (Ex.P.1) from the complainant PW-1, the PW-11 Muniammal, Sub Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station registered the FIR (Ex.P.14) in Crime No. 220 of 2009 under section 302 IPC. In column No. 7 of the F.I.R. the name of the accused and the deceased have been shown as Prakash and Kanaka respectively. The F.I.R has been received by the learned Magistrate at about 11.30 pm. PW-12 A. Rajendran, Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station took up the case for Investigation, visited the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar (Ex.P.4) and Rough Sketch (Ex.P15). On the same day he also took the photographs (M.O.6 Series) of the place of occurrence with the help of PW-8-Photographer. At about 10 p.m. he conducted inquest and prepared the Inquest report (Ex.P.16) in the presence of the witnesses. After examining the eye witnesses and other witnesses, the body of the deceased was sent to post-mortem. He again went to the place of occurrence and collected the blood stained soil (M.O.2) and plain soil (M.O.3) in the presence of PW-5-Manivannan and one Duraisamy under a Seizure Mahazar (Ex.P5). On 01.08.2009 at about 3 pm, he arrested the accused and recorded his confession statement in the presence of Village Administrative Officer Balakrishnan and Village Assistant Rajenthiran (PW-6). 7. On the confession given by the accused, he seized the weapon used for the occurrence Aruval (M.O.1) and the dresses of the accused Shirt (M.O.4), Lungi (M.O.5) under the Seizure mahazar (Ex.P.7) and sent the seized objects to the Court. After completion of the post-mortem he seized the objects on the body of the deceased (M.Os.8 to 16). 8. On 05.08.2009, he enquired the doctor who conducted the post mortem and got the post mortem report (Ex.P.3). He also sent the material objects for chemical examination thorough court. Thereafter, his successor PW-13 K. Panneerselvam, Inspector of Police, Ammapettai Police Station continued the investigation. After getting the forensic report and after perusing the records, he examined the witnesses once again. After completing the investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 449 and 302 IPC. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as supra. After getting the forensic report and after perusing the records, he examined the witnesses once again. After completing the investigation he filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Section 449 and 302 IPC. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned Trial Judge found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him as supra. Aggrieved over the same, the accused has filed this Appeal by raising the main grounds that no independent witnesses have been examined in this case and there are material contradictions in the evidences of the witnesses. 9. Heard the submissions of Mr. S. Manoharan, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meera, Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the respondent State. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned trial Judge has not given the benefit of doubt though there are contradictions in the evidences of the eyewitnesses; the version of the eyewitnesses about the occurrence is not true; PWs.1 to 3 are relatives and hence, their evidences are unreliable and the accused has been convicted on the basis of mere premises and surmises. 11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the evidence of the eyewitnesses are cogent, clear and trustworthy. The report of the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, the materials objects seized from the accused coupled with the forensic science report corroborate the evidence of the eyewitnesses and proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 12. The point for consideration is: Whether the finding of the learned trial Judge as to the guilt of the accused under Section 302 and 449 IPC, basing on the material available before him is fair and proper? 13. This case is based on the occular evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 who had seen the occurrence. PW-1 has stated that on the day of occurrence (31.07.2009) at about 5.00 p.m. he came to his native place in a bus and after he alighted from the bus, PWs. 2 and 3 met him and told about the quarrel that occurred between the deceased and the wife of the accused. When PWs. PW-1 has stated that on the day of occurrence (31.07.2009) at about 5.00 p.m. he came to his native place in a bus and after he alighted from the bus, PWs. 2 and 3 met him and told about the quarrel that occurred between the deceased and the wife of the accused. When PWs. 1 to 3 came to the house of PW-1, by walking together and approaching the house, they heard the noise of the deceased; so they rushed to the house and saw the accused was attacking the deceased with aruval; on seeing them he ran away. PW-1 has also stated about the details of fresh injuries sustained by the deceased. 14. PW-2 has also stated about witnessing the occurrence when he came near PW1’s house along with PW-1 and PW-3. PW-2 was also aware of the alleged quarrel that had already occurred between the deceased and the wife of the accused. PW-3 has stated in his evidence about the quarrel that had occurred in the noon and told the same to PW-1 and PW-2. PW-3 has also stated that during the course of the quarrel, the accused supported his wife and hence the deceased abused him. 15. The date and time of the occurrence, place of occurrence and the manner of the occurrence as revealed by PWs. 1 to 3 in their evidence is identical and consistent. PW-3 has stated about the facts that preceded the occurrence and about what he told PW-1 after he alighted from the bus. The Forensic examination done (vide report Ex.P.10) on the shirt and lungi (M.Os.4 and 5) of the accused showed the presence of human blood on them. PW-1 to PW-3 did not have any motive against the accused. So there is no reason to suspect their incriminating evidence against the accused. The evidence of the eyewitnesses tallies with the scientific evidence also. 16. The doctor who had conducted the post-mortem (Ex.P3) on the body of the deceased has recorded the following external injuries present on the body of the deceased: “1. A deed elliptical clean cut wound of 10 x 4 cm over the left side of neck with vessels exposed. 2. A deep lacerated wound over right side of neck and there also with vessels exposed. 3. Fractured forearm with laceration of right side. 4. Amputated wound of right index and thumb. 5. A deed elliptical clean cut wound of 10 x 4 cm over the left side of neck with vessels exposed. 2. A deep lacerated wound over right side of neck and there also with vessels exposed. 3. Fractured forearm with laceration of right side. 4. Amputated wound of right index and thumb. 5. Lacerated wound over back of the left arm. 6. Cut injury of left little finger. 7. Deep cut injury over the left shoulder and joint exposed. 8. A “V” shaped laceration over the left shoulder and joint exposed. Internal examination: All organs are of normal weight and size. Stomach contained partially digested food. Uterus normal size and empty. Hyoid bone intact. Blood sample preserved.” 17. After receiving the viscera report from the Forensic department that there is no poisonous substance found in the viscera, the doctor had given his final opinion that the deceased had died due to haemorrhage, cut injuries on her neck and shock caused by the several injuries sustained by her. Those injuries can be inflicted with the weapon called aruval (M.O.1). And the said weapon was recovered by the investigation officer from the accused and the same was also proved. All these factors would only corroborate and strengthen the evidence of the eyewitnesses. 18. There is no delay in registering the First Information Report and sending it to the Court. So the element of spontaneity is not lost and there is no scope to add any imaginary content in the complaint. The investigation has also been done in a timely manner. In this background, the consistent evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 dispel any suspicion and prove to be trustworthy. 19. However in the complaint (Ex.P1), PW-1 has stated that the quarrel between the accused and the deceased had taken place only in the evening. Though PW-3 and PW-2 have stated that the quarrel had taken place in the afternoon, the complaint shows that the quarrel had taken place only in the evening. The inquest report would also show that the quarrel had taken place only in the evening of the 31.07.2009 and the occurrence is just an off-shoot of the quarrel. 20. In that context of the facts, no premeditation could have been formed by the appellant to murder the deceased. The inquest report would also show that the quarrel had taken place only in the evening of the 31.07.2009 and the occurrence is just an off-shoot of the quarrel. 20. In that context of the facts, no premeditation could have been formed by the appellant to murder the deceased. The appellant who got enraged during the quarrel, had attacked the deceased with the deadly weapon like aruval, knowing pretty well that it would cause her death. So the act of the appellant in committing the crime would fall under the class of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Hence, the appellant ought to have been punished for the offence under Section 304 (I) IPC instead of 302 IPC. 21. Since the appellant had trespassed into the house of the deceased in order to commit the offence, it is correct for the learned trial Judge to convict him for the offence under Section 449 IPC. For the foregoing reasons, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant has to be modified under Section 304(I) IPC. The victim was a helpless woman and was a panchayat member. She was a Dalit. Of course the appellant is also a Dalit and is said to be related to her. Hence a substantive sentence of 10 years rigorous imprisonment would sub serve justice. 22. In the result, this Criminal Appeal is partly allowed and it is modified to the extent that the appellant is convicted for the offence under Section 304(I) IPC and sentenced to undergo ten years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo three months simple imprisonment. If the fine amount has already been paid pursuant to the Judgment and order of the trial Court, it is not necessary for the appellant to pay once again. The conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 449 IPC stands confirmed. The sentences shall run concurrently. Periods of incarceration so far undergone by the appellant shall be set off as per Section 428 Cr.P.C.