Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The circumstances clearly establish that the accused was employed in the hotel and used to sleep in the hotel, and on the night of occurrence both the deceased and the accused were alone in the hote..
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The circumstances clearly establish that the accused was employed in the hotel and used to sleep in the hotel, and on the night of occurrence both the deceased and the accused were alone in the hotel. The evidence of PW1, PW2 and PW3 in this regard is clear, cogent and credible. Additionally, the accused and the deceased were last seen together on the previous night. The appellant was absconding and was arrested long after the incident. The circumstances are sufficient to hold the accused guilty. [Para 7] [49-E-G] 1.2. However, considering nature of the injuries, the appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 (Part II) IPC and custodial sentence of 8 years would meet the ends of justice. Conviction and sentence u/s 392 IPC need no interference. Both the sentences u/ss. 304 and 392 IPC shall run concurrently. [Para 8 and 9] [49-G-H; 50-A, B] V.N. Raghupathy for the Appellant. G. Prakash for the Respondent.
