PANNEERSELVAM Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These criminal appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2010 passed in S.C.No.2/2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Karur. The trial Court, by the said judgment and order, acquitted the accused 1 and 3 to 5/respondents 1 and 3 to 5, however, convicted Panneerselvam (A-2) of the offence under Section 304 (II) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Challenging the conviction and sentence, Panneerselvam (A-2) is before this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.288/2010 and challenging the acquittal of accused 1 and 3 to 5/respondents 1 and 3 to 5, Palaniammal (P.W.-1) is before this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.273/2019.

(2.) The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is as follows: 2.1 The deceased Periyasamy is the husband of Palaniammal (P.W.-1) and father-in-law of Punitha (P.W.-2). The family of the deceased hails from Melapalayam Punnam Village. 2.2 Panneerselvam (A-2) is the son of Kaliappan (A-1) and Lakshmi (A-5) and grandson of Periyasamy (A-3) and Pappayee (A-4). 2.3 The family of the deceased and the family of the accused were related by blood, inasmuch as the father of the deceased and the grandfather of Periyasamy (A-3) were brothers. Both families were owning properties adjacent to each other and after partition, they were enjoying their respective shares. 2.4 However, there were disputes between the two families with regard to a cart-track that was running across the land of the deceased party from the land of the accused party. The deceased party were objecting to the usage of the said cart-track by the accused party, on account of which, there were frequent quarrels between them. 2.5 While so, on 17.06.2009 (Wednesday), around 7.00 a.m., the deceased, along with his wife Palaniammal (P.W.-1) and daughter-in-law Punitha (P.W.-2), was taking steps to fence the cart-track so as to prevent the family members of the accused and others from using it as a pathway, on coming to know of which, it is alleged that the accused party came to the place of occurrence and questioned the deceased, as a sequel of which, an altercation ensued, in which, the accused party belaboured the deceased with a scimitar (a short, curved sword with an edge on the convex side), resulting in the death of the deceased at the place of occurrence.

(3.) On the complaint (Ex.P-1) given by Palaniammal (P.W.-1), Karunakaran, (P.W.-11), Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 340/2009 under Section 302 IPC on 17.06.2009 at 8.30 hrs. against Kaliappan (A-1) and Panneerselvam (A-2) and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.-17), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 17.06.2009 at 11.50 a.m., as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.