JUDGMENT : This Criminal Appeal is directed against the conviction preferred by the sole accused being aggrieved by the judgment and conviction rendered in S.C.No.116 of 2019, dated 23.09.2021, on the file of Sessions Judge, Mahalir Court(Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi. 2. The brief facts is that: Kaleeswari, grand-daughter of the deceased by name, Arumuga Perumal gave a complaint to the Kayathar Police Station on 23.1.2019 at 20.00 hours informing that her grand-father by name Arumuga Perumal residing at North Illanthaikulam Village was attacked by the accused who is residing in the opposite house when there was a wordy quarrel beween her and the accused in which her grand-father intervened. The incident, according to the complainant was a consequence of the earlier wordy quarrel between P.W.1 and the accused happened on the same day. The incident was witnessed by Chellammal P.W.2, Eswari P.W.3, P.W.4 Veeralakshmi and P.W.5 Marimuthu. The Investigation Officer proceeded to the spot, prepared the Observation Mahazar and Athatchi in the presence of independent witnesses Shamugaraj, examined as P.W.6 and one Gurusamy. The inquest was conducted in the place of crime and thereafter the body was taken to Tamil Nadu Medical College Hospital for post-mortem. The blood-stained materials were sent for chemical analysis and chemical examination report as well as the serological report were obtained. The accused was arrested on the same day. On completion of investigation, final report was filed and the the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, being satisfied that the offence are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions. 3. On perusing the records, the Sessions Court framed charge against the accused for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women from Harassment Act and Section 302 of IPC and Section 506(ii) of IPC. The substance of the charge is that the accused residing opposite to the house of P.W. 1 on 23.1.2019 at about 4.15 p.m got provoked by P.W.1 reprimanding her children playing in the street as if P.W.1 is scolding the mother of the accused by in and do. Therefore there was a wordly quarrel between them at 4.30 p.m. When P.W.1 went to purchase groceries, the accused followed her with aruval .P.W.1 was allerted by P.W.2 and P.W.3 and before she could realize, her grand father who came their intervened and prevent the assault. Therefore there was a wordly quarrel between them at 4.30 p.m. When P.W.1 went to purchase groceries, the accused followed her with aruval .P.W.1 was allerted by P.W.2 and P.W.3 and before she could realize, her grand father who came their intervened and prevent the assault. At that time, the accused after abusing P.W.1 with all abusive words and attacked Arumugaperumal with Aruval. The said Arumugaperumal to avoid the attack directed on his head prevented it with his left fore-arm and the attack used to fall on his fore arm.Then again, the accused attacked Arumuga Perumal wih Aruval on his head causing injury. The said Arumugaperumal was taken to the hospital immediately. Further he succumbed to the injury after 12 days of treatment. ie., on 3.2.209 at about 8.40 p.m. 4. Since the accused had threatened the persons, who were witnessing the occurrence, if they come near him, they will also face the same consequnce and intimidate them of dire consequnces. The trial Court has felt that he has also committed the offence under Section 506(ii) of IPC, besides, the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women From Harassment Act for abusing P.W.1 and Section 302 for causing death of Arumugaperumal with an intention to cause death. 5. To prove the charges, prosecution has examined 16 witnesses and marked 19 exhibits and also 6 material objects. Since the occular evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W.6 were so cogent and reliable about the occurrence, the trial Court held that the prosecution has proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- and in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women from Harassment Act. The trial Court acquitted him for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, since the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The said conviction and sentence is challenged on the ground that the Court below had erred in not appreciating he contradiction between the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, whose presence is highly doubtful. The trial Court acquitted him for the offence under Section 506(ii) IPC, since the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The said conviction and sentence is challenged on the ground that the Court below had erred in not appreciating he contradiction between the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, whose presence is highly doubtful. The proximity between the date of evidence and date of death and the probability of intervening factors for the cause of death, not been properly appreciated by the trial Court.The prosecution has also not placed the medical records of the deceased to know what sort of direction is given to him from the date of his admission in the hospital on 23.1.2019 and date of his death i.e., on 3.2.2019. 6. The learned counsel also submit that the accused right from his birth been suffering from mental disorder and the same has been taken note of by the learned Judicial Magistrate while he was produced for remand.The presence of medical records would also indicate that the accused has been in continuous treatment for his mental illness. Even as per the prosecuion, the occurrence has taken place due to provocation and by mistake. The deceased was a passer-by and the accused has no intention to harm him. While so, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is not sustainable. There is an unexplained delay in registering the FIR and forwarding the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate and that was not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. Regarding the testimony or P.W. 1 to P.W.6, were cogently incriminated the appellant. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that P.W.1 and 2 are interested witnesses and they had also intimidated wih the appellant and therefore their testimony cannot be taken as a gospel truth and be treated as wholly reliable witnesses. 7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State would submit that the occurrnce took place in a public place at day light and the accused is not an unknown person, but a known person. The alleged provocation is only self inflicted provocation by the accused which had presumed that P.W.1 reprimanding her young child was in and do. The alleged provocation is only self inflicted provocation by the accused which had presumed that P.W.1 reprimanding her young child was in and do. He had not stopped with one blow with aruval which was prevented by the deceased but had made the second blow on the vital part of the body, which is the cause for the death. 8. Relying upon the evidence of the post-mortem Doctor and the Post mortem Certificate, the appellant submitted that the cause for the death is due to the injury sustained. The Doctor has opined that Arumugaperumal appered to have died of complications of heavy cut injury to the region of head. If the death had caused due to any other intervening factors that would have been revealed in the post mortem certificate. Non production of medical records will not give any assistance and help to the accused to doubt the prosecution case. The ocular evidence of P.W.1 to 3 without no doubt speaks about the overtact of the accused and his intention to cause death of Arumugaperumal and try to intervene with the accused and try to attack P.W.1. The lerned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the deceased is the grand-father of P.W.1, P.W.2 is the sister of P.W.1, P.W.3 is the neighgbour living in the same street, They are all natural witnesses and their evidence does not suffer from any embelishment and therefore contended that the finding of the trial Court has to be confirmed. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court. 10. The post mortem certificate reveals that Arumugaperumal sustained cut injury to a length of 5 cms left side of frontal region and also 5 cm cut injury on the back of the left fore-arm, besides, certain abrasion and injuries on the frontal region. The cause for the death as pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not reveal any other cause for the death out of the explicit complications arising out of the cut injury in the head region. The complications thought not mentioned, that cannot be considered as an intervening factor to aggravate the injury due to medical intervention. The cause for the death as pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor does not reveal any other cause for the death out of the explicit complications arising out of the cut injury in the head region. The complications thought not mentioned, that cannot be considered as an intervening factor to aggravate the injury due to medical intervention. Therefore, the duty of the Court is to examine the witness whether the injury caused by the accused on Arumugaperumal was with an intention and knowledge to cause death and whether the act of causing death falls under any of the exceptions as contemplated under the staute. In this regard, this Court taking note of the fact that the appellant is not a normal person, but, he had some mental disturbance. Probably hat had made him to provoke that P.W.1 was scolding her children when they were playing in the street. This provocation caused at 4.15 p.m had made him to follow P.W.1 when she was on the way to purchase groceries. This Court finds that the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.3, the appellant following P.W.1 with Aruval. Tbey have allerted and shouted at her to run away. The evidence of these two witnesses are quite natual and they are the persons at the scene of occurrnece, has also cannot be ruled out as improbable. The appellant had attacked Arumugaperumal, who had suddently intervened to save his grand daughter. Therefore, it is quite clear that his intenton was not to cause any fatal or death of Arumugaperumal, but, it is only fit of anger he has attacked Arumugaperumal not once but twice.The second blow has been the vital blow which has caused the death of Arumugaperumal. To make it short, that the evidence of eyewitness though proved that the injury caused by the appellant is the reason for the death of Arumugaperumal, when we test whether the injury was caused with knowledge and with an intention to cause death and whether it falls under any of the exceptions as contemplated under Section 300 of IPC. We are able to lay our land to the exception (1) which reads as below: ‘’ 300. We are able to lay our land to the exception (1) which reads as below: ‘’ 300. Murder :-- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or -- secondly.-- if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injuury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-- Thirdly.--If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-- Fourthly.--If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.’’ 11. In this case, even as per the complaint, the appellant due to deprivation of his self control had caused the death of Arumugaperumal. The accused had no intention to cause any injury to Arumugaperumal, but, had attacked him because he had intervened when the accused was about to attack P.W.1. It is a case of transfer of mallice and therefore for that reason the appellant cannot be exonerated for except to take the incident to the first exception of Section 300 of IPC as a mitigting circumstances to punish him under Section 304(1) IPC rather under Section 302 IPC. 12. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant was arrested on 23.01.2019, since then is confined in prison. His mental health is also not upto the mark and deteriorating, hence seek for modification of the sentence. 13. After due consideration of the facts and evidences, this Court holds that the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women from Harassment Act and the offence punishable under Section 304 (1) of IPC. His mental health is also not upto the mark and deteriorating, hence seek for modification of the sentence. 13. After due consideration of the facts and evidences, this Court holds that the appellant is guilty of offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women from Harassment Act and the offence punishable under Section 304 (1) of IPC. As far as the sentence is concerned, taking into consideration the events as discussed above, the appellant is sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 4 of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women from Harassment Act and Six years rigorous imprisonment( 6 years RI) for the offence under Section 304(1) IPC with a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. 14. The period of sentence shall run concurrently. The period of incarceration already undergone both pre-trial and post-trial, shall be set off under Section 428 of IPC. 15. With the above modification, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.