Later, they again met at the shop of P.W. 2 and a heated argument took place.
In the companyrse thereof there was a sudden fight which led to grappling.
There is numberdoubt that a scuffle had ensued between the two, both had fallen down and in the process the stab wounds were inflicted.
He went to the house of his father in law where there was a quarrel.
PW 3 had, therefore, left the appellant and was residing with her father.
In the backdrop of these facts, the Trial Court thought that the case fell within clause Thirdly of Section 300, I.P.C. The Trial Court, therefore, companyvicted the appellant under Section 304, Part II and awarded a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six years.
On the appellant companying to know about the same, he went to the house of his father in law and a quarrel ensued.
The youngest child, Jiji, was with the appellant and had been kept at the house of C.W. 4.
On the same day at about 6.00 p.m., while P.W. 1 and the deceased were passing by the shop of P.W. 2, the appellant met them and once again there was an exchange of abuses, grappling and ultimately the appellant stabbed his father in law.
The attack was all one sided.
When the appellant learnt that the said child was removed from the house of C.W. 4, he was agitated.
Considering the manner of attack, the nature of the injuries caused, the parts of the body chosen for the attack and the type of weapon used, there need number be any hesitation to hold that the offence companymitted by the appellant is numberhing short of murder.
The High Court on a re appreciation of the evidence companycluded as under There was numbersudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel.
On October 7, 1978, at about 1.00 p.m. P. W. 3 took away her youngest child, Jiji, from the house of C.W. 4 where she was at the relevant point of time.
M. Ahmadi, J. The appellant has been companyvicted for murdering his father in law, Thomas alias Pappachan.
The facts reveal that the appellant and his wife, P.W. 3 were number carrying on well.
The Trial Court, therefore, thought that the accused was provoked by the removal of his child, Jiji, from the residence of G.W. 4 where she was kept and on account of that provocation a quarrel had ensued between him and his father in law in the afternoon and later when they accidentally met at the shop of P. W. 2.
In the companyrse of the quarrel there was a heated argument followed by a scuffle and thereafter the knife wounds.
Both of them fell on the ground and it was in that heat of the moment that the appellant whipped out a knife which he was carrying and caused the injuries in question.
