The learned Public Prosecutor would contend that that having regard to the incident that took place three days prior, it can be inferred that the accused was having intention to cause the death of the deceased. But it is to be noted that even as per the evidence of P.W.1, about three days prior to the date of incident, the accused bolted the doors from out side, opened the gas, threatened to lit fire by abusing them. P.W.1 is said to have broke open the door, came out of the house, admonished the accused and sent him away. If the evidence of P.W.1 is tested with the evidence of P.W.5 and Ex.P.5, it would show that on that day when the accused asked the deceased to give money, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. The contents of P.5 would show that in a fit of anger, the accused picked up a stick and beat the deceased on the head, as a result of which the deceased sustained injuries and fell down. From the evidence referred to above, it cannot be said that the accused had any intention to cause the death of the deceased. If his intention was to cause death of the deceased, the accused would have gone there armed with a weapon, but that is not the case of the prosecution. Admittedly, the accused went home in a drunken condition, demanded the deceased to give money and when she refused for the same, a quarrel took place. Then, he picked up the stick which was lying there and beat the deceased. Further, if really the intention of the accused was to kill the deceased, definitely he would have dealt number of blows, as no one was there at that time in the house and he was not aware about the presence of P.W.1. Taking into consideration the nature of the weapon used, which according to the prosecution is stout, it can be said that the
