JEYABAL Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE criminal appeals are directed against the judgement of the learned Prl. Sessions Judge, Dindigul made in Sessions Case No.64 of 2004, finding both the accused guilty under Section 302 of IPC and imposing punishment of life imprisonment on both the accused along with fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

(2.) THE appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.124 of 2005, is the first accused and the appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.112 of 2007, is the second accused. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.124 of 2005, viz., Jayabal, S/o. Muthu Gounder, died on 10.03.2007 in Government Rajaji General Hospital, Madurai and to substantiate the same, the death certificate issued by the Madurai Corporation dated 17.03.2011 has been produced before this Court. Accordingly, by virtue of the death of the first accused, who is the appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD) No.124 of 2005, the said criminal appeal stands abated.

(3.) IT is the main contention of Mr.K.Jeganathan, learned counsel for appellant in Crl.Appeal (MD)No.112 of 2007, who is the second accused, that there was a finding that no motive can be attributable to the second accused, and simply because he caught hold of the hands of the deceased, it cannot be said that he would have intended for any further stab stated to have been caused by the first accused, causing the death of the deceased and therefore, there is no intention on the part of the second accused in killing the deceased even though he caught hold of the hands of the deceased from the behind. IT is also his submission that no motive or intention can be attributed to the second accused for the reason that in an altercation regarding the illicit intimacy of first accused with the wife of the deceased, stated to have occurred between the deceased and the first accused and even as per the prosecution, the second accused was not present and therefore, there cannot be any intention on the part of the second accused to kill the deceased. Further, admittedly the prosecution itself has not attributed any overt act against the second accused. He would also submit that when the occurrence took place on 13.04.2003, at 4.30 pm, the compliant was given at 5.15 pm, and though the Investigating Officer is stated to have handed over the FIR immediately to the Head Constable, to be sent to the Court, the FIR reached the Court only at 10.30 pm and therefore, according to him, between 6 pm to 10.30 pm, there is possibility for the Investigating Officer to have inserted the name of the second accused deliberately. Therefore, he has pleaded for setting aside the conviction against the second accused. He would rely upon the judgement of the Supreme Court in Ramashish Yadav and others vs. State of Bihar (1999 (8) SCC 555), wherein it was held that merely because two persons had held the deceased, while the other two gave blow, it cannot be said that there was common intention for those who caught hold of the deceased to commit murder. He would also rely upon the judgements in Harbans Nonia and another vs. State of Bihar (1992 Crl. L.J. 105) and Ram Sarup Singh and another vs. State of Bihar (1971 (3) SCC 262).