KANNIAPPAN Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE DHARMAPURI DIST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment dated 8.1.2010 passed by the Additional Sessions Court-cum-Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri in S.C. No.145 of 3007, whereby the accused/appellants, seven in numbers, stood charged, tried and awarded punishment as follows:- Sl.No. Rank of the accusedChargesSentence 1 1st accused 147, 148, 324 read with 149, 307 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C.One year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 324 read with 149 I.P.C. R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. For two years for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. 22nd accused147, 148, 324 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 302 I.P.C. One year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 324 read with 149 I.P.C. R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. For two years for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 33rd accused147, 148, 324 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 302 I.P.C.One year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 324 read with 149 I.P.C. R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. For two years for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 44th accused147, 148, 324 read with 149, 307 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C.One year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 324 read with 149 I.P.C. R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. For two years for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. 55th accused147, 148,324, 307 read with 149 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C.One year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. For two years for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. 6 6th accused147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149 and 302 I.P.C.One year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. For two years for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. 77th accused147, 148, 324, 307 read with 149 and 302 read with 149 I.P.C.One year R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for one month for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. R.I. for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for two months for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. R.I. for five years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo R.I. for six months for the offence under Section 307 read with 149 I.P.C. Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo R.I. For two years for the offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows:- (i) P.W.1 is the son of the deceased. P.W.2 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.3 is the son-in-law of the deceased. P.W.4 is the daughter of the deceased. A1 is the brother of the deceased. A2 is the co-brother of fourth accused. A3 is the son of the brother of the deceased. A4 is the next brother of the deceased. A5 is the daughter of first accused. A6 is the younger brother of second accused. A7 is the wife of second accused. THEy are all residents of Mallikuttai village, Kattukottamai within the jurisdiction of respondent-police. (ii) THEre was a division of the family property. THE grandfather of P.W.1 originally had vast landed properties. After dividing the properties and giving to his sons, he retained 5 acres for himself. He was not maintained or cared by the first accused, but the family of the deceased took care of him and maintained him. Few years prior to his death, the grandfather of P.W.1 executed two settlement deeds bequeathing the property to P.W.1 and his younger brother one Arumugam. THE family of first accused was aggrieved over the same. (iii) On the date of occurrence i.e. 14.7.2005, the fourth accused was actually cutting thorn fences and making attempt to take them. In that process, there was a wordy altercation. THE fourth accused called accused 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. All the accused immediately rushed over there. In that process,the deceased was attacked by the second accused by crow bar and by accused 3 and 6 by stick. P.W.1 was attacked by first accused with suluki and fourth accused with crow bar. When P.W.2 intervened, seventh accused has bitten her finger, fifth accused has also attacked her with stick and sixth accused with a crowbar and caused injury. When the distressing cry is heard, immediately they ran away from the place of occurrence. THE deceased, P.Ws.1 and 2 were taken to the Hospital. (iv) On receipt of intimation, P.W.10 Head Constable attached to respondent-police proceeded to the Hospital and recorded the statement of P.W.1. P.W.13 Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of the statement of P.W.1 registered a case in Crime No.309 of 200 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and prepared Ex.P17 First Information Report. THEreafter, P.W.13, who took up the investigation, went to the spot, made an inspection and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P18. (v) Pending investigation, the accused persons were arrested. Accused 1 and 3 were arrested. THE first accused gave confession statement voluntarily and the admissible portion of the same is marked as Ex.P20. He also produced suluki and the same is recovered under the cover of mahazar Ex.P21. P.W.16 Inspector of Police took up further investigation. He recorded the statement of witnesses. On 29.7.2005 at about 12.10 a.m., the deceased, who was actually taking treatment, died. Hence, the case was altered to one under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and amended First Information Report Ex.P27 was despatched to the Court. (vi) THE investigating Officer conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses. Ex.P28 is the inquest report. THEreafter, he sent the dead body for conducting autopsy. P.W.14, Doctor, who conducted autopsy, issued post-morted Certificate Ex.P23, where he has opined that the deceased died of effects of head injuries. In the said Certificate, the injuries are noted as follows:-

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellants, learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the Trial Court has taken an erroneous view. Learned counsel, pointing to the relationship of P.Ws.1 to 4, would urge that they were all not only interested, but also inimical. The prosecution witnesses have admitted that there was a partition in the property and the properties were divided by their grandfather and civil proceedings were pending before the Court and thus, before accepting their evidence, careful scrutiny test should be applied. Therefore, the Court should have rejected their testimony, since there are lot of discrepancies on various aspects. There are number of independent witnesses available, even as per the admission made by P.Ws.1 to 4, but no explanation was tendered.