PITCHAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed by Accused 1 in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1989 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge who along with Accused 2 stood charged respectively for offences punishable under Ss. 302 and 326 of the Indian Penal Code. Accused 1 was charged for having caused the death of one Muniyandi and Accused 2 was charged for having caused grievous hurt with a sharp stick. The case of the prosecution, as projected through evidence let in, was that the deceased who was on an errand for rat hunting was intercepted by Accused 1 and 2, according to whom the deceased attempted to steal coconut from the garden of which A-1 was a watchman. In the process they inflicted injuries and the injury inflicted by A-1 on the deceased ultimately proved to be fatal. On a report being lodged and after completing the investigation and having got the dead body examined by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination, the charge, as noticed above, was raised against the accused. The accused denied the charges resulting in the trial of the case in which 13 witnesses were examined for the prosecution and 15 documents were said to have been marked. On a consideration of the materials on record the learned trial Judge convicted Accused 1 u/s. 304 Part I of Indian Penal Code and while sentenced him to seven years' rigorous imprisonment, convicted Accused 2 u/s. 326 of the Indian Penal Code imposing on him a sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment, in addition to the payment of fine of Rs. 250.00 with a default clause therefor.

(2.) The aggrieved accused pursued the matter on appeal before the High Court in CA No. 974 of 1989. A learned Single Judge of the High Court on reappreciation of the materials on record thought it fit to alter the conviction from Sec. 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code to one u/s. 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code so far as Accused 1 is concerned, and imposed a sentence of three-and-a-half years' rigorous imprisonment for the same. So far as Accused 2 is concerned, the conviction u/s. 326 of the Indian Penal Code, though was maintained, sentence was reduced to two years. The learned Judge of the High Court while noticing the four government orders dated 11.4.1990, 23.2.1992, 20.2.1993 and 23.2.1994 respectively enumerated in paragraph 10 of the judgment felt it unnecessary so far as Accused 2 is concerned, to surrender, he being entitled to the benefit of remission for almost two years of the entire period of sentence imposed on him. So far as Accused 1 (the present appellant) is concerned, even after allowing such remission under the government orders, the learned Judge directed that he will have to undergo the unexpired period of one-and-a-half years' rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.

(3.) Heard Mr R. Anand Padmanabhan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr A.T.M. Sampath, learned counsel for the respondent.