THANGAVELU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE five appellants seek to question their convictions and sentences under Sections 147 I. P. C. (A. 1 to A. 5) 148, I. P. C. (A. 1 and A. 2), 302 I. P. C. (A. 1), 448 I. P. C. (A. 1 and A. 2) and 324, I. P. C. (A. 1 and A. 2 ).

(2.) APPAVU (deceased) is the brother of Ammasai, P. W. 2 and P. W. 4 is the wife of the former. Thangavelu (A-1) and Vetrivelu (A-2) are brothers. Kaliaperumal (A-3) is their half brother. Kaliaperumal (A-4) and sothukatti alias Thiagarajan (A-5) are the associates of the other accused. These prosecution witnesses and the accused belong to the village of Pulianthurai . There has been some amount of factitious enmity subsisting between APPAVU and thangavelu (A-1) since APPAVU demanded from the latter accounts for the collections and expenditure relating to the village Kaman temple festival. The first accused questioned APPAVU's right to demand accounts and he refused to account. APPAVU and his brother Ammasai (P. W. 2) did not make any further contributions to the festival. They even refrained from going to the temple. Just a month prior to this occurrence (19-7-1970) the concubine of Thangavelu (A. 1) by name Vembu, suddenly disappeared from the village after having lived with A. 1 for nearly a year. The first accused suspected APPAVU in regard to the disappearance of Vembu and had been indulging in abuses. He complained to the village headman who sent for APPAVU and enquired. APPAVU did not admit any connection with Vembu. The matter remained at that stage.

(3.) IN the statutory explanation given by the first accused under Sec. 342, Criminal P. C. , the first accused admitted that he had a concubine by name Vembu but he denied the other evidence regarding the prosecution case adduced against him. According to the first accused, Appavu (deceased) beat him as a result of which he sustained the injuries and he did not know what happened thereafter. The second accused Vetrivelu had stated that the entire evidence appearing on the prosecution side was false and that when he went to lift his brother Thangavelu (A. 1 ). P. W. 2 Ammasai hit him on his head. The plea of the other accused is one of denial. The first accused denied that he was armed with aruval at the time of the occurrence and had claimed that P. W. 2 Ammasai had beaten him. IN fact, according to A. 1, his brother A-2 called him for taking his food and that when he was on his way, Appavu questioned him as to why he was making a fuss relating to the girl and cut him severely with an aruval. Ammasai, P. W. 2, beat him and the first accused snatched the aruval from Appavu and inflicted a severe cut with it. But he did notice where the cut fell. Ammasai (P. W. 2) beat him and the aruval fell from his hand. The first accused then said that he ran away to the house of his brother Vetrivelu and went to the village headman some time later. The plea of the second accused also was one of denial but he stated that when he called his brother Thangavelu. A1 to take his food, Appavu cut Thangavelu with a knife saying : "why are you talking ill of that woman" and that Ammasai p. W. 2 came running and inflicted two or three blows and he ran away.