SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 23rd September, 2005, at about 6 p.m., one person known as Kumaraguru, who was a practicing lawyer, was murdered. According to the prosecution, this occurrence was witnessed by PW -1(Ganesan), who is the brother of the deceased. He immediately went to the police station narrating the details of the incident and on the basis of the statement, First Information Report (FIR) was recorded by the Investigating Officer (IO) viz., M. Kalifulla (PW -22). It was stated by him that his deceased brother was practicing as an Advocate at Usilampatti Bar. He was a subscriber in a private chit run by Pon Pandian alias Treasury Pandy, Accused No. 1 (A -1). As per the chit transaction, A -1 was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 5,15,000/ - to the deceased. Out of this, only a part sum of Rs.1,40,000/ - was paid. Because of the non -payment of remaining amount, the deceased had lodged a complaint against A -1 in the Usilampatti Police Station and a case was also registered as Crime No. 1309 of 2003 under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It was further stated that pursuant to the said registration of crime at the instance of the deceased, the Inspector of Police had inquired into the matter and questioned A -1 in the presence of his son Uma Sankar, Accused No. 2 (A -2) and his son -in -law S.Tamilraj, Accused No. 6 (A -6). At that time, A -6 issued a cheque for part of the amount that was due to the deceased and had also given in writing that he would make the balance payment and settle the dispute amicably. On this basis, the said case was closed by the Police and final report submitted in this behalf on the aforesaid settlement. However, what happened in the Police Station was taken by A -1 as his insult and, therefore, A -1 as well as his son A -2 kept on threatening the deceased and his wife (PW -12), who was a practicing Doctor with, dire consequences. It is with this motive that on the fateful date, i.e., on 23rd September, 2005 at 6 p.m., A -1 along with A -2 and A -6 and three more unknown persons came to the place of occurrence. They saw the deceased coming in his Hero Honda Motor Cycle bearing registration No. TN 58 H 5567 along with his son who was a school going boy. On seeing the deceased, the Maruti Van in which the accused persons were sitting, came and dashed in front of the motor cycle. As a result, the deceased fell down along with his son. At that stage, A -1 instigated the other accused persons to attack the deceased and kill him.

(2.) A -6 also came there from a car and he also instigated others. On this, A -2 attacked the deceased with a patta knife and struck him on the right side of the jaw and the neck and also instigated other accused persons to attack the deceased. Accused No. 3 (A -3) also gave a blow on his right forehead and below right ear with patta knife which A -3 was carrying. Likewise, Accused No. 4 (A -4) stabbed the deceased on his right chest and also gave knife blow on the left side of the chest. At that time, PW -1, brother of the deceased, was present there so was Ravi (PW -2), friend of PW -1. They tried to go nearby to intervene and rescue the deceased but, at that stage, Accused No. 5 (A -5) who was armed with a sickle threatened PW -1 and PW -2 not to intervene failing which they would also suffer dire consequences. After inflicting the wounds on the person of the deceased in the aforesaid manner, all the accused persons fled from the scene of occurrence. A -1 left in his Ambassador Car, A -2, A -3 and A -5 in a Maruti Omni Van which was driven by A -4 while A -6 left in his red colour Maruti Car.

(3.) All the six persons were tried for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 114, 506 (ii) and 120B of the IPC read with Section 149 of the IPC. The prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses including PW -1 and PW -2. Another purported witness PW -3, an auto -driver, was also examined who had also, allegedly, seen the occurrence. Thereafter, submissions of the accused persons under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) were recorded and arguments were heard by the Trial Court. The Trial Court returned the findings to the effect that A -2, A -3, A -4 and A -5 were persons who had committed the murder of the deceased. He, thus, convicted them under the aforesaid provisions and gave life sentence. Insofar as A -1 and A -6 were concerned, they were acquitted by the Trial Court. All four convicted accused persons, i.e., A -2 to A -5 filed appeals against their conviction. On the other hand, State also preferred appeals challenging the acquittal of A -1. The complainant, i.e., PW -1 also challenged the acquittal of A -1 and A -6 by filing two separate review petitions. All the aforesaid appeals as well as review petitions were consolidated and taken up together by the High Court for hearing which have culminated in the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2008. By this judgment, appeals preferred by A -2 to A -5 have been dismissed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court is affirmed. During the pendency of the appeal before the High Court, A -1 died. While examining the prosecution case qua the other accused persons and analysing the evidence, the High Court found that A -1 was also guilty of murder along with A -2 to A -5. Thus, even while recording his guilt, the appeal of the State and Revision Petition of PW -1 against him were treated as abated. Insofar as A -6 is concerned, his acquittal is maintained by the High Court.