MAJENDERAN LANGESWARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was held guilty under Section 302 IPC and accordingly convicted for commission of murder of one L. Shivaraman by a judgment dated 9th August, 2002 of learned Addl. Sessions Judge and sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs, 100/-, in default of payment of fine, ri for one day by an order dated 5th September, 2002. He is in appeal against such conviction and sentence.

(2.) THE facts leading to trial unfold that the appellant as also L. Shivaraman, deceased, were helmsmen/seamen on a Cargo Ship Motor vessel "lok Prem" owned by Shipping Corporation of India which was chartered by a South African private company for carrying chrome alloy. The ship was on its voyage from South Africa to Japan via Singapore. On way to Singapore its auto pilot turned dysfunctional. Necessary repair could not be carried out for non-availability of technicians on board and the ship had, thus, to be manually steered by helmsmen. The helmsmen on board led by the appellant and one M. Y. Talgharkar showed reluctance to steer the ship manually and insisted for repair of auto pilot and payment of their long overdue overtime. The appellant and M. Y. Talgharkar instigated their fellow helmsmen and others on board not to obey the commands of the master of the ship unless their said demands were acceded to. Efforts were made at Singapore to make the auto pilot functional but the same did not materialise. The Master of the ship reported the state of affairs on board to the Shipping Corporation of India whereupon directions were issued by Dr. Leo Barnes, General Secretary, NUSI to crew members to perform their duties in obedience to lawful commands of the Master of the ship. .

(3.) AN incident of assault by L. Shivaraman, deceased on the appellant took place on 30th November, 1996 in which the appellant sustained some cut injuries on his hands. The incident was reported to the Master of the ship Shri Radha Krishan Ambady, PW-5. The appellant and the deceased were earlier sharing Cabin No. 25. After the said incident, the appellant shifted from Cabin No. 25 to Cabin No. 23.