VELLAICHAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants herein, who were ranked as A-1 to A-3, were tried by the Court of Sessions, Tiruchirapalli , where the 1st appellant/a-1 was found guilty under S. 302 of I. P.C. , while the 2nd and 3rd appellants/a-2 & A-3 were found guilty under S. 302 read with S. 34 of I. P.C. , and all the accused were sentenced to life imprisonment.

(2.) THE first appellant stood charged under S. 302 of I. P.C. , while the appellants 2 and 3 were charged under s. 302 read with S. 34 of I. P.C. alleging that on 28. 3. 1992 at 11. 00 A. M. , in further of their common object to kill one subramanian, A-2 and A-3 caught hold of him, while A-1 attacked him on his head with spade; and that the injured who was admitted in the Government Hospital, Trichy died on 29. 3. 1992 as a direct consequence of the the injuries caused to him by the accused.

(3.) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that though the occurrence has taken place by 11. 00 A. M. , the first information was given only at 6. 30 P. M. , and thus, there was an inordinate delay; that the said delay was not explained; that in view of the same, no reliance could be placed on Ex. P14 F. I. R. ; that though there were number of persons and close relations to the deceased, no one informed the occurrence to the Police, and the same would clearly indicate that the accused who were inimical to the deceased, were deliberately roped in, in order to wreck vengeance; that it is pertinent to note that P. Ws. 1, 6 and 7 are all interested witnesses; that all the eyewitnesses have spoken that A-2 attacked the deceased on his shoulders, but no corresponding injury is found, which would indicate that they could not seen the occurrence; that with regard to the place of occurrence, there are lot of discrepancies; that P. W. 1 has categorically deposed that he has not stated the place of occurrence in his ex. P1 complaint; that there is variance between the testimonies of the witnesses and the observation mahazar and rough sketch with regard to the scene of occurrence; that it is highly artificial that the first accused ran to his well, which was situate about 300 feet away, brought the spade and attacked the deceased; that a perusal of Ex. P12 chemical analyst's report would indicate that vegetable matter was seen on the bloodstained earth as well as sample earth sent to the laboratory, and thus, the occurrence should have taken place within thope or field; that according to P. W. 2 Doctor, the deceased was said to have been brought by one Kandasamy , and hence, P. W. 1 could not have taken the deceased to the hospital; that the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 6, 7 and 10 cannot be relied on, in view of the testimony of P. W. 2; that it is pertinent to note that the said Kandasamy has not been examined by the prosecution; that the evidence of P. W. 2 that the deceased was said to have told him that he was beaten by five known persons, throws a doubt over the prosecution case; that it is significant to note that when the deceased was brought to the hospital at Manapparai at 1. 00 P. M. , no complaint was given either to the Police or to the Village Administrative officer; that after the first aid, the deceased was straight away taken to the hospital at Tiruchirapalli , and this will clearly show that Ex. P1 complaint and Ex. P14 FIR were concocted to rope in all the appellants in the case; that it is the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 6 and 7 that a quarrel was said to have taken place between P. W. 6 and A-3; that while so, it is highly unbelievable that the accused should have attacked the deceased; that according to Ex. P2 wound certificate, there is no wound on the right shoulder, which will eliminate A-3 from the offence; that it is pertinent to note that there was two days delay in sending the FIR to the Court; that the weapons alleged to have been used by the accused were not recovered; that there are no independent witnesses to corroborate the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 6 and 7; that according to P. W. 7, the deceased was said to have been taken to the hospital by his wife, but she has not been examined; that the evidence of P. W. 8 is totally unbelievable; that P. W. 1 has not stated in his statement to the police about the presence of P. W. 8 in the hospital on 28. 3. 92, and as such, the very presence of P. W. 8 on 28. 3. 92 in the hospital and his having signed Ex. P6 mahazar are totally unbelievable; that there are lot of contradictions between the evidence of P. W. 1 and P. W. 10; that even if the entire version of the prosecution is accepted as true, it makes an offence under S. 304 Part II I. P. C. , and the sentence awarded to the appellants are excessive; that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the lower court cannot be sustained, and hence, the same has got to be set aside, and the appellants be acquitted of the charges.