EBANESAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is at the instance of A-1 and A-2 in Sessions Case No. 199 of 1988 on the file of I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, and the revision is by the de facto complainant against the acquittal of A-2 under Sections 302 r/w 34, IPC and 307, IPC and against the acquittal of A-4 in the said Sessions Case under Sections 302, 307 r/w 34, and 336 IPC. As both the appeal and the revision arise out of a Single Sessions Case, we dispose them of by the following judgment.

(2.) The first appellant in the appeal will be hereinafter referred to as the first accused (A-1), the Second appellant in the appeal and the first respondent in the revision as the second accused (A-2), and the second respondent in the revision as the fourth accused (A-4) for the sake of convenience. They were tried along with the third accused in the said Sessions case, who died pending trial and in this judgment, he will be referred to in the order as he was arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge.

(3.) The case of the prosecution can be briefly summarised as follows: The deceased is the brother-in-law of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 is the wife of P.W. 1 and the elder sister of the deceased. P.W. 1 is the brother of P.W. 4 and P.W. 5 is the brother-in-law of P.W. 6. P.W. 8 is the sister of the deceased. A-2 is the father of A-1, A-3 and A-4. The witnesses and the accused were the residents of Kalanthapanai. Three years prior to the date of incident, A-1 outraged the modesty of P.W. 8 for which, she laid a complaint, and Ex.P-20 is a Copy of the First Information Report in that case. The police, after investigation, laid the final report against A-1 and A-1 pleaded guilty and paid the fine. Thereafter, he left the village for Bombay. He returned to the village a month prior to the date of incident. A week prior to the date of incident, when P.W. 1 was standing in front of the petty-shop of P.W. 5. A-1, who was also there, threatened P.W. 1 that he will not leave him alone since only because of them, he had to pay the fine in Court. He picked up a quarrel with P.W. 1. P.W. 5 intervened and separated them. This is said to be the motive.