The appellant, convicted under Sections 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), appealed against the conviction. The case involves a family dispute over unpaid electricity charges leading to the murder of Muthu, father-in-law of PW-4. The trial court acquitted several co-accused, but convicted the appellant based on eyewitness testimonies. The High Court upheld the conviction, and the Supreme Court, after reviewing submissions and evidence, dismissed the appeal, confirming the appellant's guilt.

Factual Aspects

1. Background and Relationships

   • The appellant (accused no. 1) is convicted under Sections 294(b) and 302 of the IPC.
   • Six accused in total; appellant is the son of accused nos. 2 (Kaari) and 3 (Mandiammal).
   • Accused no. 4 (Dhanalakshmi) is the appellant's wife; accused nos. 5 (Akila) and 6 (Aparna) are his daughters.
   • PW-4 Kesavan, the appellant's brother, married PW-5 Saravanapriya (deceased Muthu's daughter).
   • PW-1 Kalidoss, another son-in-law of the deceased Muthu, married to Maheswari.

2. Incident Details

   • Dispute over unpaid electricity bill for September 2016.
   • Altercation on 28th September 2016, at 8.40 pm, involving appellant and PW-4.
   • Accused nos. 2 to 6 supported the appellant.
   • Deceased Muthu, PW-1, and PW-5 intervened.
   • Appellant and accused no. 2 retrieved billhooks and attacked the deceased.
   • Deceased died from head injuries; PW-4 and PW-5 were also injured.
   • Prosecution relied on testimonies of eyewitnesses PW-1 to PW-6.
   • Trial Court acquitted accused nos. 3 to 6; convicted appellant and accused no. 2.

3. Appeals and High Court Judgment

   • Appellant appealed against the conviction.
   • PW-1 Kalidoss appealed against the acquittal of accused no. 2 for Section 302 and acquittal of others.
   • High Court dismissed all appeals.
   • Supreme Court issued notice based on the argument that the offence might fall under Part II of Section 304 IPC.

Submissions

4. Appellant's Arguments

   • Prosecution failed to establish all factual aspects.
   • Serious controversy regarding the incident timing, creating doubt.
   • Appellant had no intention or motive to kill the deceased Muthu.
   • Incident occurred due to sudden quarrel without pre-meditation.
   • Offence, at most, punishable under Part II of Section 304 IPC.

5. Respondent's Arguments

   • Supported the appellant's conviction.

Consideration of Submissions

6. Evidence Review

   • Quarrel due to non-payment of electricity bill by PW-4.
   • Deceased intervened in the family dispute.
   • Consistent eyewitness testimonies corroborated the appellant's assault with a billhook.
   • Minor discrepancies in the testimonies do not undermine their credibility.

7. Intention and Motive

   • Appellant retrieved weapon, indicating intent to assault.
   • Deceased was not the aggressor; he intervened to resolve the fight.
   • No sudden and grave provocation by the deceased.
   • Appellant initiated the dispute over the electricity bill.

8. Conclusion

   • Offence under Section 302 IPC proved beyond reasonable doubt.
   • Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.