CHINNADURAI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras passed in Criminal Revision Case No. 16 of 1983 confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant herein.

(2.) Broadly put the case as found against the appellant is thus:P. W. 3 was a money-lender and his activities became a source of revulsion to the appellant. Evidence has been led by the prosecution to show that under the unfair deals of P. W. 3 the villagers were reeling in helplessness and agony. The appellant and his companions decided of giving P. W. 3 a rough jolt. On the day of occurrence at about 6.30 p. m., the appellant and his companions trespassed into the house of P. W. 3. In the presence of P. W. 1. the son of P. W. 3, and P. W. 4, the wife of P. W. 3, he ransacked the house as if committing a robbery and in the process caused extensive injuries to P. W. 1 and P. W. 3. Some of those injuries were serious and were on vital parts. The weapon employed for the purpose was a big knife. Promptly the matter was reported by P. W. 1 to the Police and an F. I. R. was recorded in which not only the name of the appellant, but that of his companions too figured. Occasion later arose to record the dying declaration of P. W. 3 since his condition was deteriorating. A Magistrate employed for the purpose recorded the statement of P. W. 3 in which specifically the appellant alone was mentioned by name and the names of others were missing, though their participation in the occurrence was fixed in that statement. All the same, during the occurrence no article was removed and, thus, in a sense, no robbery or dacoity was committed. Correspondingly, nothing was recovered from the appellant or his companions, which could be said to be robbed property. This is the sum total of the prosecution case.

(3.) The participation of the appellant has been established by three Courts below and we have no reason to disbelieve P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 with regard to the complicity of the appellant in the crime. The argument available to others on the basis of omission of their names in the so-called dying declaration of P. W. 3 is of no avail to the appellant since he at least was named both in the F. I. R. as also in the statement of P. W. 3. There could even be no reason for P. Ws. 1, 3 and 4 to have falsely added the appellant to be one of the culprits of the crime. We entirely agree with the view of the Courts below with regard to the appellant's participation in the occurrence.