JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to call for the records in S.C.No.207 of 2014, on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge (FTC), Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District and set aside the Judgment dated 11.12.2018 and acquit the appellant of the charges levelled as against him.) 1. This criminal appeal is filed by the sole accused, who was found guilty by the Trial Court for the offence under Sections 302 and 294(b) I.P.C. 2. The Trial Court, having found that the charges framed against the accused are proved, has imposed life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/- in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. and one month rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C. 3. The case of the prosecution is that on 26.08.2013, at about 07.00 p.m., at Pudupadaiyur Vellala Street, near Water Pump, there was a quarrel between the accused and his father Balasubramanian. At that time, the deceased Swaminathan, a resident of the same street, interfered and tried to pacify the father and son, who were quarrelling. The accused herein infuriated by the intervention of the deceased, pushed him down uttering filthy and abusive words. Due to the forcible push, the deceased Swaminathan fell down and sustained head injury. Thereafter, he was taken to the Hospital immediately. However, he succumbed to the head injury on the next day at 10.45 a.m. Soon after the occurrence, one Krishnaveni, wife of the injured Swaminathan, has gone to the Police Station and reported about the incident. The complaint was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police, Patteswaram Police Station, in Crime No.172 of 2013, for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323 and 506(i) I.P.C. However, on receiving the intimation of death of the injured Swaminathan, the respondent Police altered the charges for the offence under Sections 294(b), 323, 506(i) and 302 I.P.C. and the altered F.I.R. was also forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Kumbakonam. On completion of the investigation, the prosecution filed the final report and on serving the documents relied on by the prosecution, the case was committed to the Sessions Court as the offence committed by the accused being triable by the Court of Sessions. 4. On completion of the investigation, the prosecution filed the final report and on serving the documents relied on by the prosecution, the case was committed to the Sessions Court as the offence committed by the accused being triable by the Court of Sessions. 4. The following two charges were framed against the accused: Charge-1: On 26.08.2013, at about 07.00 p.m. near Balasubramanian's thatched house-water pump at Pudupadaiyur Vellala Street, the accused and his father Balasubramanian were quarrelling as usual. At that time, Swaminathan (deceased), a resident of the same street, came out from his house and tried to pacify the father and son. At that time, the accused using filthy language questioned the deceased who he is to interfere in the fight between him and his father and thereby, committed the offence triable under Section 294(b) I.P.C. Charge-2: On the same day, in continuation of the same incident, the accused slapped the deceased on his cheek and pushed him down forcibly and threatened that if he interferes in his family affairs henceforth, he will kill him. Due to the push, the deceased fell down on the floor, sustained injuries on the occipital region and died subsequently and thereby, committed the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 5. Since the accused denied the charges, he was subjected to trial. 6. To prove the case, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses, marked 18 documents and 03 material objection. On the side of the accused, no evidence was let in and no document was marked. 7. P.W.1, who is the de facto complainant, is the wife of the deceased Swaminathan. P.W.1, in her evidence, has spoken about the incident occurred on 26.08.2013 at about 07.00 p.m. According to P.W.1, on the fateful day, while she and her husband were watching television in their house, they heard alarm that somebody is killing. Therefore, she and her husband Swaminathan came out of the house and saw the accused, who was hitting his father Balasubramanian with wooden log. Hence, she and her husband intervened and reprimanded the accused that it has become a routine for them to fight like this and cause disturbance. Immediately, the accused bounced on the husband of P.W.1 that who is he to interfere with his family affairs and pushed him down. Hence, she and her husband intervened and reprimanded the accused that it has become a routine for them to fight like this and cause disturbance. Immediately, the accused bounced on the husband of P.W.1 that who is he to interfere with his family affairs and pushed him down. Due to the forcible push of the accused, her husband fell down and sustained injury on the back of his head and sustained bleeding injury. On seeing blood oozing in his nose, mouth and ears, P.W.1 along with Rathinam, Latha Natarajan, Sadasivam and Punithavathi, who are all neighbours in the locality, brought the injured Swaminathan to Tanjore Vinodhagan Memorial Hospital and admitted him for treatment. On the next day, the injured Swaminathan was declared dead at about 10.00 a.m. Thereafter, the Police recorded the complaint given by P.W. 1. Her complaint was marked as Ex.P1. The evidence of P.W.1 is corroborated by P.W.2-Natarajan, P.W.5-Baskar, P.W.6-Punitha and P.W.19- Sathyamoorthi. 8. P.W.17-Alagesan, Inspector of Police, has initially taken up the investigation and being satisfied that the accused has caused the death of Swaminathan, arrested the accused on 28.08.2013 at about 02.00 p.m., recorded his confession statement and remanded him to the judicial custody. 9. The Trial Court, on appreciating the evidence let in by the prosecution, has concluded that it is not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder to bring it under the offence punishable under Section 304(II) I.P.C., since without any provocation, the accused pushed down the deceased and caused fatal injury. Therefore, the Trial Court held that the accused is found guilty for the charges under Sections 302 and 294(b) I.P.C. 10. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, this appeal is filed by the accused. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in a proper perspective and there is embellishment and improvement in the case of the prosecution, which would go to show that the case of the prosecution is highly improbable. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the alleged witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.Ws.1 to 6 are interested witnesses and their presence at the SOC, even according to their testimony, is highly improbable. However, the Trial Court has accepted them as eye witnesses and held the accused guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder. 12. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the alleged witnesses to the occurrence, namely, P.Ws.1 to 6 are interested witnesses and their presence at the SOC, even according to their testimony, is highly improbable. However, the Trial Court has accepted them as eye witnesses and held the accused guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would specifically submit that even the prosecution case is taken as proved, there is no intention to cause murder or no knowledge to cause injury, which is likely to cause death. The learned counsel for the appellant would specifically submit that even according to the F.I.R. and the deposition of P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, in the fit of anger, the accused pushed down the deceased, who interfered with the family affairs. Therefore, the learned counsel would plead that the Trial Court ought not to have convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. purely based on the hearsay evidence and without any evidence to satisfy the ingredients of Section 300 I.P.C. 13. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, pointing out the testimony of P.W.1, wife of the deceased, her complaint (Ex.P1) along with postmortem report (Ex.P7) would submit that the case of the prosecution is well proved by these documents that without any provocation, the accused inflicted injury, which is likely to cause death in the ordinary course. The deceased, who is a good samaritan, wanted to pacify the father and son quarrelling in a public place and lost his life due to the act of the accused and therefore, the punishment imposed by the Trial Court has to be confirmed. 14. Heard the learned counsel on either side and carefully perused the materials available on record. 15. This Court, on considering the postmortem report (Ex.P7), which discloses the following antemortem injuries: “1. Scalpal contusion of size 18x8 cm seen over occipital region. (2) Marked sub dural haematoma of size 50gm noted over frontal lobe, (3) Frontal lobe found lacerated. (4) Diffuse thin SDH SAH noted over temporal and parietal and occipital lobe. (5) Intra cerebral haemorrihage noted both temporal and parietal lobe. Scalpal contusion of size 18x8 cm seen over occipital region. (2) Marked sub dural haematoma of size 50gm noted over frontal lobe, (3) Frontal lobe found lacerated. (4) Diffuse thin SDH SAH noted over temporal and parietal and occipital lobe. (5) Intra cerebral haemorrihage noted both temporal and parietal lobe. (6) Fissure fracture of length 7 cm noted over occipital region.” and the ocular evidence relied on by the prosecution, holds that the death of Swaminathan was caused due to the head injury as noted above and the fissure fracture of 7 cm length over occipital region caused the death. This tallies with the ocular evidence of P.W.1 duly supported by the other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.2 to 6. This singular injury on the occipital region of the deceased was not caused by any weapon or with intention, admittedly it was caused due to sudden push of the accused. Therefore, this Court finds no evidence to hold that the push was with any intention to cause death. 16. It is also to be noted that P.W.1, in her testimony, states that the accused after pushing her husband down, uttered that since P.W.1 (wife) is present, he spare the deceased without killing. Therefore, the mens rea of the accused, even by his own utterance, indicates that he had no intention at that time to cause the death of Swaminathan and the injury was caused due to the sudden push. Since the death was caused due to sudden quarrel in a fit of anger without any premeditation, this Court holds that the act of the accused would fall under the Explanation “culpable homicide not amounting to murder” and the benefits of Exception (IV) to Section 300 I.P.C. deserve to be extended to him. 17. Therefore, we are inclined to modify the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant from one under Section 302 I.P.C. to one under Section 304(II) I.P.C. and sentence the appellant to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo two months simple imprisonment. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C., by the Trial Court stands confirmed. 18. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C., by the Trial Court stands confirmed. 18. In the result, The criminal appeal is partly allowed; The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused, by Judgment dated 11.12.2018, in S.C.No.207 of 2014, on the file the learned Additional District Sessions Jude, Fast Track Court, Kumbakonam, for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. are hereby set aside. Instead, the appellant/accused is convicted under Section 304(II) I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Insofar as the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 294(b) I.P.C. is concerned, the order of the Trial stands confirmed. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Suspension of sentence granted by this Court, on 24.04.2019 in Crl.M.P.(MD) No.3273 of 2019, stands cancelled. Since the appellant/accused is on bail, it is directed that the Trial Court shall take steps to secure him and to commit him to prison to serve out the period of sentence. The period of sentence already undergone by the appellant/accused shall be set off under Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Insofar as the disposal of material objects, the order of the Trial Court stands confirmed. Fine amount paid, if any, is directed to be adjusted towards the fine amount now imposed.