JUDGMENT : H.B.Prabhakara Sastry, J. The present appellant, who is accused in Sessions Case No.30/2017, in the Court of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as the 'Sessions Judge's Court'), has challenged the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2019 and order on sentence dated 07.06.2019, convicting him for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity, referred to as 'the IPC') and sentencing him accordingly. It is against the said judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal. 2. The summary of the case of the prosecution in the Sessions Judge's Court was that on 25.06.2017, at about 9.30 p.m., in his house at Seabird Colony, Harwada, Ankola Taluk, within the limits of complainant-police station, the accused, after picking up a quarrel with his elder son Vinod for non payment of money to him, abused him in filthy language, threatened him to his life and also throwing a grinding stone on the head of his sleeping son Vinod and inflicting multiple injuries upon him committed his murder and thereby committed the offences punishable under Section 504, 506 and 302 of IPC. 3. Since the accused pleaded not guilty, in order to prove the allegations made against the accused, the prosecution got examined in all ten witnesses from PW-1 to PW-10 and got marked twenty-eight documents from Exhibits P-1 to P-28 and Material Objects from MO-1 to MO-7. From the accused side, no witness was examined, however, portions of statement of PW-2 was got marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2. 4. After recording the evidence led before it and hearing both side, the learned Sessions Judge's Court by its impugned judgment dated 06.06.2019 convicted the accused for the alleged offences. By its order on sentence dated 07.06.2019, for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC it imposed rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. The accused was also sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed against him, the accused in the learned Sessions Judge's Court has filed the present appeal. 5. The respondent-State is being represented by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 6. The records from the learned Sessions Judge's Court were called for and the same are placed before this Court. 7. Perused the materials placed before this Court, including the memorandum of appeal, impugned judgment and the records from the Sessions Judge's Court. 8. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred to as per their rank before the Sessions Judge's Court. 9. After hearing the learned counsels from both side, the points that arise for our consideration in this appeal are: (i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date 25.06.2017, at about 9.30 p.m., in his (accused) house at Seabird Colony, Harwada, within the limits of complainant police station, the accused intentionally abused his elder son Vinod in filthy language, insulted him and provoked him to cause breach of public peace and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC? (ii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date, time and place mentioned above, the accused put life threat to his son Vinod and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC? (iii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date, time and place mentioned above, the accused knowing the consequence of his act and intentionally by throwing a grinding stone on the head of his son Vinod, caused his murder and thereby has committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC? (iv) Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrants any interference at the hands of this Court? 10. (iv) Whether the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warrants any interference at the hands of this Court? 10. The relationship between the accused, PW-1 (CW-1) Vikram Pandurang Harikantra, PW-2 (CW-6) Madevi Pandurang Harikantra, PW-3 (CW-8) Yogesh Pandurang Harikantra, that the accused is the father of PW-1 and PW-3 and husband of PW- 2 is not in dispute. The evidence about the said relationship, which has come out in the examination-in-chief of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, has not been denied or disputed from the accused side. It is also not in dispute that the accused, along with PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, was residing in their house at Seabird Colony, Harwada, within the limits of complainant police station. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 in that regard has not been denied from the accused side. The evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW- 3 and PW-8 (CW-9) Anil Chendekar that the deceased Vinod was the elder son of the accused, that he was working for a boat at a place called Malpe, and that he was coming to his parents' house at Harwada whenever there will be holiday for boat work as such, on the date of the incident, the deceased had been in the house of his parents, is also not denied or disputed from the accused side. Further, the evidence of PW-8 that he was the neighbour of the house of the accused at Harwada and that his house was situated after about two-to- three houses from the house of the accused and that he knows the family of the accused is also not denied from the accused side. Further, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8 that Vinod, the elder son of the accused and PW-2 and who is also the elder brother of PW-1 and PW-3, died an unnatural death on 25.06.2017 at about 9.30 p.m. in his house at Harwada, also has remained undenied and undisputed. It is in the light of these undisputed facts, the evidence led by the prosecution is required to be analysed. 11. The prosecution's case is that on the date 25.06.2017, the deceased Vinod was in his parent's house at Harwada. The accused, who was addicted to liquor, was frequently demanding and collecting money from his son Vinod and was regularly quarrelling with him. The accused was also assaulting his wife and children whenever he had consumed liquor. 11. The prosecution's case is that on the date 25.06.2017, the deceased Vinod was in his parent's house at Harwada. The accused, who was addicted to liquor, was frequently demanding and collecting money from his son Vinod and was regularly quarrelling with him. The accused was also assaulting his wife and children whenever he had consumed liquor. That being the case, on 25.06.2017, in the night at about 9.30 p.m., the accused demanded money from his son Vinod, who had come to his parent's house (house of the accused). However, the said Vinod did not give him any money but went to a room in the house to sleep. The accused picking up a grinding stone assaulted his son by throwing the said stone on the head of his son Vinod at which Vinod sustained fatal injury and succumbed to it. 12. The learned counsel for the accused (appellant), in his argument, submitted that though he would not dispute the fact of unnatural death of Vinod in his parents' house on 25.06.2017 at about 9.30 p.m., he strongly denied that it was a murder and that the same was committed by the accused. He further submitted that the registration of FIR is without the complaint and as such, the entire investigation stands vitiated. He also submitted that since the alleged insult is not made in a public place, Section 504 of IPC is not attracted. Learned counsel also submitted that there is a discrepancy in the case of the prosecution since the complainant, in his complaint, has stated that the grinding stone was outside the house whereas in his evidence, as PW-1, he has stated that the accused went into the kitchen and brought the grinding stone. The said discrepancy creates a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution, the benefit of which is required to be given to the accused. Finally, stating that non-examination of ambulance driver is fatal to the case of the prosecution, the learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal. 13. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent, in his brief arguments, submitted that PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, who are none else than the family members of the accused, are also eyewitnesses to the incident. All these witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-8 also supports the case of the prosecution. 13. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent, in his brief arguments, submitted that PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3, who are none else than the family members of the accused, are also eyewitnesses to the incident. All these witnesses have fully supported the case of the prosecution. Furthermore, the evidence of PW-8 also supports the case of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 14. The very first argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the registration of FIR is without a complaint and as such, the entire investigation itself stands vitiated. Since the said argument of the learned counsel for the accused (appellant) goes to the root of the validity of the investigation, the said point of argument is taken up in the beginning itself for its consideration. 15. According to the learned counsel for the accused (appellant), the alleged complaint (information) marked at Ex.P.1 since shown to be a statement of the informant, it is not a complaint. Thus, the First Information Report at Ex.P.15 becomes a FIR without a complaint as such, the entire investigation stands vitiated. 16. A perusal of Ex.P.1 would go to show that, it is shown to be the statement of PW-1 (CW-1) - the son of the accused. It is shown in the complaint that after narrating about the alleged incident, the informant had concluded his statement requesting the complainant-police to take appropriate legal action upon his complaint against his father. The registering authority of the said information, who is PW-7 (CW-22) H.Omkarappa, the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police of complainant police station had noted his endorsement at the bottom of the said document stating that the said statement was presented by the complainant by appearing in the police station on 26.06.2017 between 0030 hours to 0115 hours, the same was computerised, a printout was taken and after reading it over to the complainant, the contents of which the complainant admitted as true, the same was received and registered in their station Crime No.216/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 and 302 of IPC. A careful reading of the said document at Ex.P.1 clearly goes to show that the presenter of the said information had given the information as per Ex.P.1 before the registering Police Officer calling his statement as a 'complaint' and requesting them to take legal action against his father accusing him of committing the murder of his (PW-1's) elder brother. The Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, who received the said information, has clearly stated that the informant appearing before him in-person has given those details orally, which he (ASI) got computerised, took a printout and after reading the contents to the informant and acceptance by the informant about the correctness of the contents, he has received the said information, registered it as a crime in Crime No.216/2017 and prepared a FIR as per Ex.P.15 and sent it to the Court. The same is the evidence of the registering officer, who was examined by the prosecution as PW-7. Thus, even though his endorsement at the bottom of the said document shows that it was a statement given by the informant, by the said nomenclature as a 'statement', it cannot be understood as a statement before the Investigating Officer under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (herein after for brevity, referred to as 'Cr.P.C.'). Since the word 'Statement' being a general word, it cannot be confined to Section 161 of Cr.P.C. The very endorsement of the information receiving & registering Officer (PW-7) at Ex.P.1, it was got computerised by him and read over to the informant and it is only thereafter it was received and registered in the station, would go to show that it is the 'information' given by PW-1 (CW-1) which commonly would be called as complaint to the police. Therefore, the argument of the learned counsel for the accused (appellant) that there is no complaint to the police for preparing a FIR is not acceptable. 17. The next question that arises is, whether the death of the deceased Vinod was homicidal. 18. PW-1 and PW-3, the sons of the accused, and PW-2, the wife of the accused, in their evidence uniformly have stated regarding the nature of the death of the deceased as death due to the injuries sustained by him due to assault made with throwing of the grinding stone on his head. 18. PW-1 and PW-3, the sons of the accused, and PW-2, the wife of the accused, in their evidence uniformly have stated regarding the nature of the death of the deceased as death due to the injuries sustained by him due to assault made with throwing of the grinding stone on his head. PW-1 has stated that at the said assault, the head of the deceased got broken and the brain came outside. At their cry, the neighbours (CW-10 & CW-11) came there and having seen the scene, called an ambulance to the place in which the deceased was shifted to Government Hospital at Ankola where the doctor, after examining, declared the injured as dead. According to this witness, the said assaulting of his brother with a grinding stone was by his father. Thus, this witness has called the death of his brother as homicidal. In the cross-examination of PW-1, general denial suggestions were made to this witness with respect to the statement about the occurrence of the incident that he had narrated. However, the witness has not admitted those suggestions as true. A defence was taken from the accused in his cross-examination suggesting to the witness that PW-1 and the deceased had an altercation and, in the said process, the deceased died falling on a stone and got his head broken. However, the witness did not admit the said suggestion as true. 19. PW-2, the wife of the accused also has stated that the death of the deceased was due to throwing of a grinding stone on his head by the accused. She too has stated that, when she saw the deceased on the night of the incident, she noticed that his brain had come out and blood was oozing from his head. Thus, she too has called the death of her son as homicidal. Even in her cross-examination also from the accused side, it was suggested to her that, at the time of the incident, PW-1 and the deceased were fighting with each other and in the said process the deceased fell on a stone and got injured his head. The witness has not admitted the said suggestion as true. 20. Even in her cross-examination also from the accused side, it was suggested to her that, at the time of the incident, PW-1 and the deceased were fighting with each other and in the said process the deceased fell on a stone and got injured his head. The witness has not admitted the said suggestion as true. 20. PW-3, the another son of the accused, also has stated that his brother died due to the assault by his father who threw a grinding stone on his head, and thus sustaining injuries to his head his brother died. Thus, he too has shown that the death of the deceased was by the act of another human being. Thus, he implied that it is a homicidal death. 21. PW-8 (CW-9)-Anil Chendekar, who undisputedly is the neighbour of the accused with about two-to-three houses in between their houses, has also stated that on the night of the incident, after hearing the quarrelling noise from the house of the accused, when he entered the house of the accused, he noticed the dead body of the deceased Vinod with his brain having come out from the head, and nearby he also noticed a grinding stone. Thus, this witness also called the incident as a homicidal death. He has accused the accused for the alleged act of death of the deceased. Even in his cross-examination also, a suggestion was made to the effect that the deceased and PW-1 were fighting with each other and in the said process, the deceased fell down and sustained injuries to his head. However, the witness has not admitted the said suggestion as true. Thus, according to the material witnesses examined by the prosecution, the death of the deceased Vinod was homicidal. 22. The other witness, who speak about the death of the deceased is PW-4 (CW-2) Manjunath Shivu Harikantra, who has stated that the inquest panchanama on the dead body of the deceased was drawn in his presence as per Ex.P.8. He has also identified the photograph at Ex.P.7 stating that the said photograph was taken at the time of drawing up of inquest panchanama. He too has stated that when he saw the dead body, he noticed that the deceased had sustained injuries to his head and scalp was open. He has also identified the photograph at Ex.P.7 stating that the said photograph was taken at the time of drawing up of inquest panchanama. He too has stated that when he saw the dead body, he noticed that the deceased had sustained injuries to his head and scalp was open. The inquest panchanama at Ex.P.8, which was referred to by this witness, shows that the panchas have noticed the features of the dead body and also the injuries sustained by the deceased. They too have observed that the deceased had sustained injuries to his head in the form of opening of the scalp and coming out of brain from the scalp. After examination of the dead body and gathering some information in the spot, the panchas have opined that the death of the deceased was a murder. The said opinion of the panchas that it was a murder has not been specifically denied in the cross-examination of PW-4. 23. PW-10 (CW-19) Dr. Ramesh C., a Specialist Doctor in the Taluka Hospital at Ankola, has stated that on 25.06.2017, while he was on Casual Duty in the hospital, at about 11.00 p.m., the deceased was brought to their casualty and, on examination of the patient, he noticed that he was brought dead. On the next day, i.e., 26.06.2017 at the request of the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.16 and a report sent by the Investigating Officer as per Ex.P.17, he conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased - Vinod Pandurang Harikantra. The witness has stated that, as an external injury, he noticed the presence of one cut lacerated injury measuring 8 x 2 x 2 cms. over the scalp extending from left to right parietal region with outpouring of brain matter. On dissection of the scalp, he noticed clotted blood within the fractured site with fractures of both parietal bones. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature aged around twelve hours. In that regard, he has issued post-mortem report as per Ex.P.22. The witness opined that the death of the deceased was due to head injury secondary to trauma. On dissection of the scalp, he noticed clotted blood within the fractured site with fractures of both parietal bones. The injuries were ante-mortem in nature aged around twelve hours. In that regard, he has issued post-mortem report as per Ex.P.22. The witness opined that the death of the deceased was due to head injury secondary to trauma. The witness has further stated that on 07.07.2017, he received a material object sent to him by the Investigating Officer for his opinion, after unpacking the object, he noticed a domestic grinding stone (M.O.3) and after examining the same, he gave his opinion that, by means of said domestic grinding stone, if assault is caused on the head, the injury found on the deceased is possible to occur. In that regard, he has given an opinion as per Ex.P.24. He also stated that he weighed the said grinding stone at M.O.3 which was weighing 8.700 kilograms and it had blood stains on its outer surface. He has identified his finding about the said grinding stone with its diagram and measurement at Ex.P.29. He has stated that, in the ordinary course of business, if the object like M.O.3 is thrown on the head of a sleeping person, an injury as noticed in the post-mortem report is possible to be caused and the same is sufficient to cause the death. In his cross-examination, the witness has stated that the brain matter had completely come out of the head. The cause of death opined by this witness could not be shaken in his cross-examination. Though the witness, in his cross-examination, stated that if a person is pushed forward and if he comes in contact with a hard surface, there is all possibilities of he sustaining fracture of his head, but the witness also stated that, then the chances of brain matter coming out is very remote. Thus, the witness has ruled out the possibility of the death of the deceased being caused accidentally in a scuffle or fight between two persons. Thus, the witness has ruled out the possibility of the death of the deceased being caused accidentally in a scuffle or fight between two persons. Thus, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8, the material witnesses and the evidence of PW-4 the pancha to the inquest panchanama and PW-10, the doctor who conducted the autopsy not only corroborates the evidence of PW-9 (CW-23) Basappa Durgappa Burli, the Investigating Officer, about he drawing the inquest panchanama in the presence of panchas and getting the post-mortem examination of the dead body done through PW-10, but also proves that the death of the deceased was not only an unnatural death but it was homicidal. Thus, it stands established that the deceased Vinod died a homicidal death. 24. The next question that arises for consideration is, whether the homicidal death of the deceased Vinod Pandurang Harikantra was a murder and it was committed by the accused and the accused alone. 25. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the wife and the sons of the accused have uniformly stated in their evidence that on the day of the incident, at about 9.30 p.m., all of them including CW-7 were sitting on a straddle (a platform or bench like permanent structure made in or outside the house attached to the house, which is called as 'jagali' in Kannada language) in their house, and just before that the accused had demanded money from the deceased Vinod (his elder son) and when he did not give him money, the accused had asked him to quit the house. According to PW-1, however, the deceased (his elder brother) stating that from the next day on-wards he would not come to the house and he would go to his grandmother's house at Marba, had gone inside a room in the house and had lied down. According to these witnesses, while they were still sitting on the straddle, the accused took a grinding stone and proceeded towards the room where the deceased was sleeping. Noticing the same and anticipating some untoward incident, though these three witnesses got up and rushed to the room where the deceased was sleeping, however by that time, the accused had already thrown the grinding stone which was held by him on the head of his sleeping son Vinod at which the scalp had fractured and opened, and the blood and brain matter had come out. The injured was shifted to a hospital in an ambulance, however, the doctor declared him as 'brought dead'. Stating so, all these three witnesses have identified the grinding stone at M.O.3 as the one with which the accused caused the death of his own son. In addition to the above, PW-1 and PW-3 have stated that when they started yelling, the neighbours including CW-9 (PW-8) Anil Chendekar came there and the accused left the place. These witnesses have also stated that the deceased was lying in the room by spreading a towel, and he was wearing a T-shirt & a black colour pant. These witnesses have identified those articles including the grinding stone at M.O.1 to M.O.6. P.W.1 also identified an underwear at M.O.7 stating that the said underwear was worn by the deceased. All these three witnesses have uniformly stated that it was the accused and accused alone who threw the grinding stone on the head of his own son Vinod and caused his death. P.W.1 also stated that it was he who lodged a complaint before the police as per Ex.P.1. He also stated that the police visited his house to whom he shown the spot and they drew a scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P.2 and took photographs of the spot and also collected the blood-stained soil, sample soil, the grinding stone used in the commission of the crime, the blood-stained towel and a T-shirt under the panchanama. 26. The learned counsel for the appellant/accused, in his argument, submitted that PW-1, who is also a complainant, in his complaint has stated that the grinding stone said to have been used in the commission of the crime was lying outside the house and the same was picked by his father before throwing it on the head of Vinod, whereas, in his evidence, he has stated that the accused picked the said grinding stone from the kitchen and as such, it is a major discrepancy creating a serious doubt in the case of the prosecution. 27. PW-1 in his complaint to the police, which is at Ex.P.1, has stated that the grinding stone picked up by his father was from outside the house whereas in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he went to the kitchen and picked up a grinding stone. 27. PW-1 in his complaint to the police, which is at Ex.P.1, has stated that the grinding stone picked up by his father was from outside the house whereas in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that he went to the kitchen and picked up a grinding stone. However, the said discrepancy was not put to PW-1 in his cross-examination from the accused side eliciting his response. On the other hand, both PW-2 and PW-3, the mother and the younger brother of the deceased, have uniformly stated that the accused picked the grinding stone from the kitchen and then went to the room where the deceased was sleeping and threw it on the head of the deceased. Both the witnesses adhered to their original version even in their cross-examination. In the cross-examination of PW-1, PW-2 and PW 3, it was not even suggested to the witnesses that the said grinding stone was not belonging to the house of these witnesses and that it did not have any blood stains on it. Therefore, the alleged discrepancy in the complaint of PW-1, which discrepancy was also not confronted to PW-1 in his cross-examination, remains as a very minor discrepancy without affecting the case of the prosecution. Thus, the evidence of PW- 1 and PW-3, who are the sons of none else than the accused and also the evidence of PW-2, who is none else than the wife of the accused, clearly go to prove that it was the accused and accused alone who threw the grinding stone at M.O.3 on the head of his own son Vinod and caused his death. 28. 28. The evidence of PW.8 (CW-9) Anil Chendekar who, undisputedly, is the neighbour of the accused with an intervention of two-to-three houses, has also stated that on the night of the incident, at about 9.30 p.m., while he was standing near his house talking with CW-10 to CW-12, he heard quarrelling noise from the house of the accused; thinking that it is a usual quarrel, these people did not go near the said house; however, within ten minutes thereafter, he heard the voice as "don't assault, leave him"; hearing that, all these four persons went near the house of the accused and at that time, the accused came out of the house, and on asking as to what had happened, the accused stated that he has killed his son by throwing a grinding stone on his head and left the place. These people went inside the house and saw the dead body of the deceased Vinod with injuries on his head, the brain matter coming out from his head, and near his dead body a grinding stone was also found fallen. Immediately, these people called an ambulance to make an attempt to save the life of the deceased. They shifted Vinod to Government Hospital at Ankola, where the doctor, after examining him, declared him as 'brought dead'. This witness has also identified the grinding stone at M.O.3, which he found near the dead body. His evidence could not be weakened in his cross-examination from the accused side. Thus, an independent neighbour witness, whose presence near the house of the accused and he seeing the place of the incident immediately after its occurrence cannot be doubted, has also stated that it is not only they saw the accused coming out of the house but also heard from the accused himself that he killed his own son with the grinding stone. Therefore, the evidence of PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-3 further stands corroborated from the evidence of PW-8 and established that it was the accused and accused alone, who has caused the death of his son by throwing the grinding stone on his head. 29. Therefore, the evidence of PW- 1, PW-2 and PW-3 further stands corroborated from the evidence of PW-8 and established that it was the accused and accused alone, who has caused the death of his son by throwing the grinding stone on his head. 29. Even though PW-2, the wife of the accused in her evidence has stated that at the time of the incident, there was no light in their house and she has seen the same with the help of a battery torch, the witness also stated that, however, on the said day there was electric supply in their village and at the time when the accused threw the grinding stone on the head of their son, there was electricity light in their house. Further, it is also not the defence of the accused that there was no electricity supply in the house and as such, the culprit cannot be identified by anyone. Moreover, when the accused is none else than the father of PW-1 and PW-3 and the husband of PW-2, as such, being a family member living in the same house, his identification by PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 cannot be suspected. 30. The evidence of PW-2, who is none else than the wife of the accused, would go to show that the house in which the incident had taken place has got three rooms. The kitchen of the house was situated on the western side of verandah whereas the room was on the eastern side of the verandah as such, whosoever goes from kitchen to room has to pass through the verandah. The witness has stated, while the accused was going from kitchen to room, since they were sitting on the straddle, they could see the accused moving from one end of verandah to another. The said evidence of PW-2, which was elicited in her cross-examination from the accused side having remained undenied, is further corroborated by the rough sketch prepared by the Investigating Officer (PW-9) which is at Ex.P.3. Further, the evidence of PW-5 (CW-21) - Rama Argekar, the Assistant Engineer of Public Works Department (PWD) shows that he too, at the request of the Investigating Officer, has visited the spot of the offence and has drawn the sketch which this witness has identified at Ex.P.12. Further, the evidence of PW-5 (CW-21) - Rama Argekar, the Assistant Engineer of Public Works Department (PWD) shows that he too, at the request of the Investigating Officer, has visited the spot of the offence and has drawn the sketch which this witness has identified at Ex.P.12. The said sketch also corroborates the evidence of PW-2 regarding the situation of kitchen, verandah and room in the house of the accused. This also corroborates the say of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 that since they were in the house and sitting on the straddle, after having dinner, they could see the accused entering the room where the deceased was sleeping. Therefore, it can be strongly believed that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 were the eyewitnesses to the incident. 31. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 have all identified the grinding stone at M.O.3 as the one with which the accused caused the death of the deceased Vinod by throwing the said stone on his head. Even PW-8, the neighbour, also has stated that immediately after the incident, when he rushed into the house of the accused, apart from seeing the accused leaving the house by stating that he has killed his son, has also stated that he saw the grinding stone near the dead body of Vinod in the room. The doctor, who was examined as PW-10, as observed above, apart from seeing the stone at M.O.3, has also stated about the stone with its measurement and weight as per Ex.P.29. His statement that the said stone was weighing 8.700 kilograms has not been denied. He has also opined that the injury found on the deceased can be caused by throwing the said stone on the head of the deceased. Thus, the medical opinion establishes a link between the weapon at M.O.3 with the death of the deceased. These facts further corroborates with the Report of the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Mangaluru, which is at Ex.P.27, and shows that the T-shirt worn by the deceased, the towel upon which the deceased was lying at the time of the incident, the grinding stone with which the deceased was assaulted and killed, the blood-stained mud collected from the spot and the track pant worn by the deceased at the time of the incident were all stained with human blood of 'O' Group. Thus, the weapon and the blood stain on the said weapon (M.O.3-grinding stone) and the dress worn by the deceased and the towel upon which the deceased was lying all had stains of human blood of same group which, from the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, would go to show that it was of the deceased's blood, since it is immediately after the incident, the family members, PW-1, PW- 2 and PW-3 have rushed to the room and saw the deceased sustained bleeding injuries. Therefore, the evidence led by the prosecution also establishes the nexus between the grinding stone at M.O.3 and the death of the deceased. 32. The spot of the incident is not in dispute. PW-1, PW-2, PW-3 and PW-8 have all stated that the incident has taken place in a room in the house of the accused. The said fact is further corroborated by the evidence of PW-6 (CW-5) Manjunath Jatti Harikantra, who has stated that the scene of offence panchanama, as per Ex.P.2, was drawn in his presence and the articles at M.O.1 to 3 were also seized in his presence. The evidence of these witnesses corroborates the evidence of PW-9, the Investigating Officer that he visited the spot and drew scene of offence panchanama as per Ex.P.2 and seized articles connected to the crime including the grinding stone at M.O.3. Therefore, the spot of the incident also stands proved. 33. The motive behind the crime, according to the prosecution, is that the accused was demanding money from his deceased son frequently including on the date of incident and since the deceased did not accede to his demand, the accused committed the act of killing him by throwing the grinding stone on his head. 34. It is once again, PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, the family members of the accused himself, who have sated about the motive behind the crime. All the three of them have stated that the accused, who was addicted to consuming liquor, was regularly quarrelling with his deceased son and demanding money from him. Even on the date of the incident also, just prior to the incident, the accused was objecting to his son Vinod (the deceased) about the deceased not giving him money. All the three of them have stated that the accused, who was addicted to consuming liquor, was regularly quarrelling with his deceased son and demanding money from him. Even on the date of the incident also, just prior to the incident, the accused was objecting to his son Vinod (the deceased) about the deceased not giving him money. According to PW-1 and PW-3, the sons of the accused, since their elder brother (the deceased) did not accede to the demand of the accused, their father (the accused) asked the deceased to go away from the home. It is within few minutes of the said incident, the accused has carried the grinding stone and threw it on the head of his son Vinod causing his death. The said evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, which could not be shaken in their cross-examination from the accused side, shows that the accused was not hesitant to take a drastic step of putting an end to the life of his son for a silly reason of his son not meeting his demand for money. Even PW-8, the neighbour of the accused has also stated that the accused, who was in the habit of consuming the liquor, was pestering his deceased son, whenever he used to visit his parents' house, for money and the deceased used to give him money. This witness has also stated that the deceased has stated before him about his father irritating him demanding money from him. This had made him (this witness) to advice the accused not to irritate his son by demanding money. This statement of an independent witness, who is none other than the neighbour of the family of the accused also go to show that the accused was also in the habit of demand money from his son (the deceased). The evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 further shows that the even just prior to the incident also, the accused demanded money from the deceased, and since the deceased did not pay him the money, the accused committed the act of killing his son. This act of the accused is an act committed by him knowing the consequences of his act and with a determination to put an end to the life of his son. This act of the accused is an act committed by him knowing the consequences of his act and with a determination to put an end to the life of his son. Otherwise, the accused would not have taken such a step of picking up a grinding stone and then going to the room where his son was sleeping and throwing the stone on his son who was sleeping. According to PW-2, the mother of the deceased who is also the wife of the accused, it was after one hour of her deceased son going to sleep, the accused has committed the act of killing him. Therefore, the act of the accused cannot be called as an act committed under a grave and sudden provocation or in a fit of anger. The accused had a cooling time of not less than one hour to calm down himself even in case he had got angry at the refusal of his son to pay him the money. Therefore, the act of the accused killing his son would not fall under any exceptions to Section 300 of I.P.C. As such, the prosecution has proved the act of the accused not only as a culpable homicide but also a murder that too committed by none else than the accused and accused alone. 35. The accused though in the form of suggestions made to PW-1, PW-2 and PW-8 has taken a defence that the deceased had sustained injuries by falling upon a stone in an alleged altercation between himself and PW-1, but none of these witnesses have admitted those suggestions as true. As such, the defence of the accused also would not, in any manner, introduce any doubt in the case of the prosecution. Thus, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused and accused alone, who has caused the murder of his son Vinod. 36. The accused is also charged with the offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of IPC for which offences, the Sessions Judge's Court has held him guilty. A careful study of the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, more particularly of PW-1 and PW-3, the other sons of the accused, would go to show that just prior to the incident, the accused, apart from initiating the quarrel with the deceased, had also abused him and asked him to leave the house then and there itself. A careful study of the evidence led by the prosecution witnesses, more particularly of PW-1 and PW-3, the other sons of the accused, would go to show that just prior to the incident, the accused, apart from initiating the quarrel with the deceased, had also abused him and asked him to leave the house then and there itself. According to PW-1, the deceased is said to have told the accused that he would not return to the house from the next day and that he would go to his grandmother's house at Marba. PW-3 has stated that the accused, apart from asking the deceased to go away from the home, had also abused him as a son of a bitch. Thus, the evidence of none else than the other sons of the accused go to show that before committing the act of murder of his son, the accused also had abused him in filthy language. According to P.W.8, while he standing outside his house talking with CW-10 to CW-12, he heard this quarrel but though that it was a quarrel which was a routine. Thus, the act of the accused in abusing his son in filthy language has provoked and resulted in breach of public peace. Otherwise, P.W.8 would not have noticed the quarrel and later entered the house of the accused. Though the learned counsel for the accused, in his argument, submitted that since the alleged insult to the deceased has taken place inside the house and not in a public place, the offence punishable under Section 504 is not applicable, we are not inclined to accept the said interpretation of Section 504 of IPC since the said Section does not require that the act 'intentional insult' which gives provocation to any person to cause breaking the public peace or to commit any other offence should have necessarily taken place in a public place. Suffice, if the act of insult leads to provocation of breaking the public peace. In the instant case, since PW-8 was standing outside talking to CWs.10 to 12 and noticed quarrel and stopping conversation with each other, all of them including PW-8 entered the house of the accused, it has a clear effect that the act of the accused of his intentional insult of the deceased provoking him to break the public peace. In the instant case, since PW-8 was standing outside talking to CWs.10 to 12 and noticed quarrel and stopping conversation with each other, all of them including PW-8 entered the house of the accused, it has a clear effect that the act of the accused of his intentional insult of the deceased provoking him to break the public peace. Therefore, the prosecution has also proved the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC against the accused. 37. The accused is also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. Even though PW-1 and PW-3 have stated that the accused had a quarrel with the deceased just prior to the incident of the murder of the deceased and had asked the deceased to go out of the house, but none of these witnesses have anywhere stated of any threat by the accused upon the deceased in case if the deceased refused to go out of the house. Thus, in the absence of any threat to the deceased with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the personal reputation of anyone in whom the deceased might be interested and also in the absence of any intention on the part of the accused of causing any alarm to the deceased, the mere abusing of the deceased and thereby provoking him to cause breach of public peace would not also constitute an act of 'criminal intimidation'. However, the Sessions Judge's Court though, by giving reasons, has held the accused guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 504 of IPC, in which finding we do not find any reason to interfere, but without noticing that there was no sufficient evidence to prove the guilt against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, has also held him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. As such, it is only to the extent of setting aside the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, the impugned judgment warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 38. As such, it is only to the extent of setting aside the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC, the impugned judgment warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 38. The Sessions Judge's Court has sentenced the accused to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months, for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC; and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 504 of IPC. It is the sentencing policy that the sentence ordered must be proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt. It shall be neither exorbitant nor for the name-sake. Since the sentence ordered by the Sessions Judge's Court in the impugned order on sentence being proportionate to the gravity of the proven guilt, we do not find any reason even to interfere with the order on sentence for the proven guilt for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 302 of IPC. Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following: ORDER [i] The present Criminal Appeal stands allowed in part. [ii] The judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2019 holding the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC and the order on sentence dated 07.06.2019 sentencing the accused for the said offence, passed by the Principal District & Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, in S.C.No.30/2017, stands set aside. [iii] The accused (appellant) Pandurang Narayan Harikantra, R/o Seabird Colony, Harwada, Ankola, is acquitted for the offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC. [iv] However, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 06.06.2019 holding the accused Pandurang Narayan Harikantra, R/o Seabird Colony, Harwada, Ankola, guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 302 of IPC and the order on sentence dated 07.06.2019 for those two offences remain unaltered and unmodified. [v] The accused is entitled for the benefit of set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period having undergone by him in judicial custody, if any, in the matter. Accused is entitled for a free copy of this judgment immediately. [v] The accused is entitled for the benefit of set off under Section 428 of Cr.P.C. for the period having undergone by him in judicial custody, if any, in the matter. Accused is entitled for a free copy of this judgment immediately. Registry to transmit a copy of this judgment along with Sessions Judge's Court records to the concerned Sessions Judge's Court immediately for their needful in the matter.

Pandurang Narayan Harikantra v. State of Karnataka