JUDGMENT : (Johnson John, J.) : This appeal is filed by the accused in S.C. No. 85 of 2006 on the file of the Additional sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Kottayam challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him for the offences under Sections 450 and 304 of IPC. 2. The prosecution case is that on 11.01.2005, at about 7 p.m., the accused trespassed into house bearing No. IV/127 of Neezhoor Panchayat, owned by the deceased and with the knowledge that the deceased is a heart patient, he hit on his nose and when the deceased fell down, the accused kicked on his chest and even though the deceased was taken to the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam at about 10 a.m., on 12.01.2005, he suffered chest pain and died due to occlusive coronary artery disease and the accused is thereby alleged to have committed the aforesaid offences. 3. After the appearance of the accused before the trial court and when he pleaded not guilty to the charge, PWs 1 to 11 were examined and Exhibits P1 to P9 and MO1 were marked from the side of the prosecution. From the side of the defence, DW1 examined. 4. After hearing both sides and considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, as per the impugned judgment dated 16.09.2006, found the accused guilty under Sections 450 and 304 part-II IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years each with a fine of Rs.5000/-each and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further imprisonment for one year each under Sections 450 and 304 Part II IPC. 5. Heard Sri. C.S. Manu, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Sanal P. Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the records. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused is legally sustainable. 7. 5. Heard Sri. C.S. Manu, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Sanal P. Raj, the learned Public Prosecutor, and perused the records. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant/accused is legally sustainable. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is no evidence for any house trespass to attract the offence under Section 450 IPC and the evidence of PW1, the only occurrence witness who supported the prosecution case, suffers from serious infirmities and her evidence clearly shows that she was unable to walk and bedridden due to Parkinson disease and the trial court ought to have found that the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence is not at all reliable and the trial court rejected the evidence of DW1 regarding the occurrence on the basis of minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case. 8. It is also argued that the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to show that the deceased availed any treatment for heart disease on any day prior to the occurrence or after the occurrence and therefore, the accused/appellant is entitled for the benefit of reasonable doubt. 9. The learned Public Prosecutor argued that the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence is supported by the evidence of PW2, the son of the deceased and further, the evidence of PW3, doctor who treated the deceased in Medical College Hospital Kottayam, and the evidence of PW4, Assistant Police Surgeon who conducted the postmortem examination, would clearly show that the injury sustained by the victim accelerated his heart disease and thereby, caused heart failure, and the evidence of PW2 would show that the accused had knowledge regarding the heart problems of the deceased and therefore, there is no valid ground to interfere with the finding in the impugned judgment. 10. 10. PW1 is the wife of the deceased and she deposed that a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-was due from the accused to her husband and in the evening on 11.01.2005, while the accused was passing through the road in front of their house, her husband demanded back the money and then there occurred a verbal altercation between the accused and her husband and the accused trespassed into the courtyard of her house and hit on the nose of her husband and when her husband fell down in supine position, the accused kicked on his chest. According to PW1, she saw the occurrence while standing on the door of her room. 11. PW1 also deposed that when she cried aloud, the accused left the place and thereafter, her husband stood up and came to the room with bleeding injuries in his nose. The evidence of PW1 shows that subsequently her husband telephoned his son and after the arrival of her son, the injured was taken to hospital. 12. According to PW2, the injured was first taken to St.Vincent Hospital, Kuravilangadu and the doctor, after examination, referred the patient to Medical College Hospital. When the injured was taken to the casualty at Medical College Hospital, he was referred to ENT Section. The evidence of PW2 shows that his father was discharged from the Medical College Hospital on the next day morning at about 8.30 hours and while he was travelling in a bus along with his father, and when they reached near Pattithanam, it was found that his father is shivering and hence, they alighted from the bus and proceeded to the Medical College Hospital in an autorickshaw and when they reached Thavalakuzhy, his father was motionless and hence, he took his father to the nearby Vimala Hospital and there, the doctor told him that his father is dead. PW2 also deposed that he has given Exhibit P1, First Information Statement, in Kaduthuruthy Police Station and that his father was a heart patient. 13. The accused, at the time of 313 questioning, stated that he and the deceased were friends from their childhood and they used to visit each other in their respective houses. PW2 also deposed that he has given Exhibit P1, First Information Statement, in Kaduthuruthy Police Station and that his father was a heart patient. 13. The accused, at the time of 313 questioning, stated that he and the deceased were friends from their childhood and they used to visit each other in their respective houses. According to the accused, the deceased used to drink alcohol and once or twice in a month, the deceased used to reach the house of the accused with military quota liquor and the deceased used to consume 3/4 of the bottle and will give the remaining liquor to the accused. It is stated that PW1 opposed this habit of the deceased and on many occasions, she had instructed the accused not to permit the deceased to enter the house of the accused and two or three times, there occurred verbal altercation between the accused and PW1 in this connection. 14. According to the accused, because of that, PW1 and her daughter are inimical to him and while so, during the first week of January, there was a funeral in the church and while he was returning from the church along with his neighbour Reji and when they reached in front of the house of the deceased, they saw the deceased lying on the road near the steps and since he was attempting to get up from there, they assisted him and he along with Reji helped him to reach near the front door of his house and sit there and then PW1, who saw the same, uttered obscene words against the accused by saying that the accused is responsible for the problems in their family and then the accused and Reji returned from there. 15. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the evidence of PW3, Assistant Professor of ENT Medical College Hospital, Kottayam, who examined the deceased on 12.01.2005 would show that the patient or the bystander has not informed the doctor about any past history of heart problems. The evidence of PW3 and Exhibit P2 shows that the following injuries are noted: 1. Fracture in the nasal bone small linear tear in the mucosa of right lateral wall of nose. Oedema and tenderness over root of nose. 2. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm over dorsal aspect of left middle finger. 3. The evidence of PW3 and Exhibit P2 shows that the following injuries are noted: 1. Fracture in the nasal bone small linear tear in the mucosa of right lateral wall of nose. Oedema and tenderness over root of nose. 2. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm over dorsal aspect of left middle finger. 3. Abrasion 1 x 1 cm over lateral aspect of left knee. 16. In cross-examination, PW3 admitted that he did not refer the patient to the Cardiac Department. The evidence of PW3 and Exhibit P2 further shows that there was smell of alcohol in the breath of the patient at the time of examination. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention to the evidence of PW1 in cross examination to point out that PW1 has admitted that the deceased occasionally used to consume liquor and the fact that the accused and the deceased were friends from childhood. It is also admitted by PW1 in cross examination that after the occurrence, her husband was taken to the hospital only at about 8 p.m., and her evidence in re -examination shows that the occurrence was in between 6.45 p.m. and 7 p.m. In cross examination, PW1 denied the suggestion that the delay in taking her husband to the hospital was for the reason that he was drunk and she would say that the delay in informing the matter to her son was due to their fear that her son will quarrel with the accused. 17. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that a person suffering from heart disease will normally inform the doctor about the same at the time of examination and if in fact the deceased or his son had informed PW3, Assistant Professor of ENT, about the heart ailment, definitely the doctor could have referred the patient to the Cardiology Department. The evidence of PW11, Circle Inspector who conducted the investigation, shows that he has not collected any document to show that the deceased availed treatment for heart disease before or after the occurrence. In cross examination, PW11 admitted that he has not verified the documents in the Cardiology Department. However, he denied the suggestion of the defence that it was a natural death. 18. In cross examination, PW11 admitted that he has not verified the documents in the Cardiology Department. However, he denied the suggestion of the defence that it was a natural death. 18. Explanation 1 of Section 299 IPC provides that a person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. It is well settled that the key distinguishing factor between culpable homicide and murder as stated in Section 300 IPC is the degree of intention or knowledge of the offender and culpable homicide not amounting to murder involves the intention to cause death or to inflict bodily injury with the knowledge that he is likely to cause death by such act. 19. The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has not adduced any reliable evidence to show that the deceased was suffering from heart ailment prior to the occurrence apart from the interested testimony of PWs 1 and 2 in this regard and in the absence of any evidence to show that the doctors who examined the deceased after the alleged occurrence was informed about the prior medical history about any treatment for heart related ailments and in the absence of any medical records in that connection, it cannot be held that the prosecution has adduced satisfactory evidence to prove the circumstances mentioned in explanation 1 of Section 299 of IPC. 20. The learned counsel for the appellant also pointed out that the physical condition and conduct of PW1 as revealed from her evidence in cross examination would clearly show that her evidence in chief examination that she witnessed the occurrence is not at all reliable. In cross examination, PW1 admitted that she had difficulty in walking and she can stand or sit only for a short duration. It is pertinent to note that in chief examination itself, PW1 stated that it is difficult for her to walk and that after the occurrence, her husband stood up and reached inside the room and at that time, there was bleeding from his nose. It is pertinent to note that in chief examination itself, PW1 stated that it is difficult for her to walk and that after the occurrence, her husband stood up and reached inside the room and at that time, there was bleeding from his nose. PW1 has no case that when her husband fell down, she made any attempt to help him to get up from the ground and her evidence also shows that it was her husband who telephoned her son and that the injured was taken to the hospital only at about 8 p.m. 21. The evidence of PW8, Sub Inspector of Kaduthuruthy Police Station, shows that Exhibit P1, First Information Statement of PW2, was recorded at 3 p.m., on 12.01.2005. It is well settled that great importance is attached to a prompt FIR as it reduces the chances of improvement in the prosecution story and in this case, the evidence of PW1 shows that the occurrence was in between 6.45 p.m. and 7 p.m. on 11.01.2005 and there is no satisfactory explanation for the delay in registering the FIR. 22. There is no difference in the principles of law applicable for appreciating the evidence of prosecution witness and the defence witness. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that the trial court rejected the evidence of DW1 on the basis of minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence and that in spite of serious cross examination, no material discrepancy is brought out in the evidence of DW1 regarding the occurrence and that there is no reason for DW1 to falsely depose against the prosecution case. 23. The evidence of DW1 shows that the accused and the deceased are known to him and he is their neighbour. According to DW1, the accused and Neelakandan Nair were close friends and on 11.01.2005, while he was returning from the church after attending a funeral, the accused was walking in front of him and when they reached in front of the house of Neelakandan Nair, they saw Neelakandan Nair lying in prone position on the road in front of his house in a drunken condition and then the accused helped him to get up from there and together they helped him to reach near the door of his house and sit there. 24. 24. According to DW1, then the wife of the deceased uttered obscene words against the accused by saying that the accused is destroying her husband. The evidence of DW1 further shows that the accused and PW1 were not in good terms, as she was against the friendship between her husband and the accused. DW1 deposed that the deceased used to reach the house of the accused with military quota liquor, as the accused is residing alone in his house and that the deceased used to consume liquor regularly. DW1 also stated that PW1 is a patient and she is not seen outside the house. The trial court disbelieved DW1 for the reason that DW1 has stated much more details than the details stated by the accused. It is observed by the trial court that DW1 has stated that the accused is a TB patient and at the time of 313 questioning, the accused has not made such a statement and that according to DW1, himself and the accused had taken the husband of PW1 inside their house building, but according to the accused, they took the husband of PW1 only up to the door so as to enable him to sit there. 25. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that there is no material contradiction between the statement of the accused at the time of 313 questioning and the evidence of DW1 before the court and that in chief examination DW1 also stated that they took the husband of PW1 upto the door of his house and helped him to sit there and then the husband of PW1 lay there inside of the house and the fact that the accused has not stated that the husband of PW1 lay there inside of their house when they assisted him to sit on the front door of the house, is not a contradiction between the evidence of DW1 and the statement of the accused at the time of 313 questioning. 26. As noticed earlier, the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence is not free from doubt. It is in evidence that she is suffering from Parkinson disease and she is not able to move around freely. 26. As noticed earlier, the evidence of PW1 regarding the occurrence is not free from doubt. It is in evidence that she is suffering from Parkinson disease and she is not able to move around freely. Even though the alleged occurrence was in between 6.45 and 7 p.m., the injured was taken to the hospital only at about 8 p.m. and Exhibit P2, wound certificate, and the evidence of PW3 doctor shows that there was smell of alcohol in the breath of the patient at the time of examination and this probabilize the case of the defence and the evidence of DW1 that the deceased was seen lying on the road in front of his house in a drunken condition on the date of occurrence. 27. As noticed earlier, the prosecution has also not adduced any evidence to show that either the deceased or PW2 has informed the doctor about the heart ailment and the prosecution has also not produced any medical evidence to show that the deceased availed any treatment for heart ailment on any day before or after the occurrence. It is well settled that the paramount consideration of the court must be to ensure that miscarriage of justice is prevented and that if two views are possible based on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to the innocence of the accused, the view which is favourable to the accused should normally be adopted. 28. Therefore, on a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence, this Court finds that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, the impugned judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant/accused in S.C. No. 85 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Adhoc-I, Kottayam is set aside and he is acquitted. His bail bond shall stand cancelled and he is set at liberty forthwith. Interlocutory applications, if any pending, shall stand closed.