PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Vs. PANCHAKSHARAM ALIAS MANNANGATTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused Panchaksharam was charged by the Sessions Judge of South Arcot under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, with cutting the deceased Munuswami with a toddy drawer's knife on the head, back and abdomen. The learned Sessions Judge found on the evidence that the accused did strike the deceased Munuswami on the head, back and abdomen and caused the injuries alleged; but he held that the accused had neither the intention nor the knowledge which would bring the offence within the mischief of Section 304, Indian Penal Code. He found however that the accused voluntarily caused grievous hurt under grave and sudden provocation and so convicted him under Section 335, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment. The Crown has appealed against the acquittal under Section 304, Indian Penal Code.

(2.) It was contended on behalf of the Crown that the findings of fact of the learned Sessions Judge must be accepted and that the arguments of the learned Counsel for the accused must, be confined to combating the arguments with regard to the nature of the offence committed. The learned Counsel for the accused relied on Section 439(6), Criminal Procedure Code, which is to the effect that any convicted person to whom an opportunity has been given of showing cause why his sentence should not be enhanced shall be entitled to show cause against his conviction. That sub-section does not apply because this is an appeal, not against the sentence, but against the acquittal. It is however clear that in an appeal against acquittal the accused is entitled to ask the Court to consider all the evidence before it and all the possible grounds which may be raised against the conviction. If therefore the learned Counsel for the accused is entitled to argue on the facts of the case to show that the accused has not committed an offence under Section 304, Indian Penal Code, then although the acceptance of those arguments may not autocratically set aside the conviction under Section 335, Indian Penal Code yet if this Court were satisfied that no offence was committed, it would undoubtedly exercise suo motu its powers tinder Section 439 (1), Criminal Procedure Code and set aside the conviction.

(3.) However, after, hearing, the learned Counsel for the accused, I am satisfied that the facts found by the learned Sessions Judge are correct. P.W. 5 is equally related to both parties and her evidence therefore is very valuable. Moreover, the accused himself has made several statements which to a great extent meet the prosecution case. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the accused's case to the extent that while in the tope he heard that his mother had been attacked by the deceased and was lying senseless, that he came to where the deceased and his mother were, that the deceased asked him what he was doing there with the knife and struck him on the hand with his stick, that the accused then stabbed him, that the deceased then gave further blows with his stick and that the accused delivered several more blows with his knife on the person of the deceased.