AYYAPPAN Vs. STATION HOUSE OFFICER, PARANGIPETTAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this appeal is the accused in S.C. No.29 of 1992 on the file of Court of Sessions, Cuddalore. He was tried for an offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and on being found guilty, he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He is, therefore, before this Court in this appeal represented by Mr. S.E. Victor, learned counsel appearing for him. Mr. R. Karthikeyan, is defending the State.

(2.) The following is the case of the prosecution: P.W.4 is residing at B-Mutlur in Chidambaram taluk. The deceased Mohammed Noor is her husband. Kuppusamy is the father of the accused. Ten years prior to the occurrence (the occurrence was on 10.3.91) the deceased purchased lands from Kuppusamy. However, in regard thereto, a civil dispute was pending between Kuppusamy and the deceased in the Chidambaram District Munsif Court. It was pending for a long time and it ended in favour of the deceased just one week prior to the occurrence. P.W. 1 also resides at B-Mutlur. Arunmozhithevan village is just one kilometer away from B-Mutlur, where P.W.1 has lands. The deceased also has lands there. Very close to the lands of. P.W.1, there is a drying yard of the panchayat. At 5.30 p.m. on 10.3.91, P.W. 1 was supervising the drying process of the crops in the drying yard. The deceased came there in his Cycle and involved himself in a conversation with P.W.1. P.W.3 is employed as a farm servant under the deceased. P.W.2 also has lands in a nearby area. After talking with P.W.1, the deceased went towards his lands. Just before he could near his lands and when he was going over the sluice in the canal, the accused suddenly appeared there, with a stick and hit on the head of Mohammed Noor with that. M.O.1 is the said stick. However, the deceased by warding off that attack, received that injury on his right hand. Immediately, the injured Mohammed Noor shouted the names of certain persons, which includes the names of P.Ws. 1 and 3 and asked them to come to his help, as he is being beaten. P.Ws. 1 to 3 immediately rushed to the scene where they saw the accused beating on the head of the deceased with M.O.1. The deceased immediately fell from his cycle, followed by repeated attacks by the accused on his neck and chest with M.O.1. On the witnesses nearing, the accused ran towards north. P.W. 2 gave a chase to secure him, but, however he failed. P.W. 3 brought some water and tried to give it to the deceased. However, he was found dead. P.W.1 sent news to P.W.4 through P.W. 3. P.W. 1 went to the police station around 7.00 p.m. on that day itself and gave Ex.P.1. the complaint, before P.W. 6, the Sub-Inspector of Police.

(3.) P.W.6 on receipt of Ex.P. 1 registered it in Crime No.90 of 1991 for an offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.5 is the printed first information report. He sent Exs. P.1 and P.5 to the Court, as well as to the higher officials. The Court received the material records at 8.20 p.m. on that night. P.W.7, the Investigating Officer, on receiving the information about the crime went to the scene of occurrence immediately and reached there at 8.15 p.m. P.W.6 was there at that time. He observed the scene of occurrence. He observed the deceased lying dead. He prepared Ex.P. 6, observation mahazar and Ex.P.7, the plan. He caused photographs to be taken of the dead body. M.O.2 series and M.O.3 series are the photographs and negatives. Between 1.15 p.m. and 11.45 p.m. he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased, during which time he examined P.Ws.1 to 3 and recorded their statements. Ex.P.3 is the inquest report. He sent the dead body for post mortem and directed the dead body to be given to P.W.4 after post mortem.