SUYAMBULINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is against conviction.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is as follows:- THE deceased Sudalaimadan and one woman, by name, Ammasikani were neighbours living in a Village called Pallakurichi in Sathankulam Taluk, Tuticorin District. On 18.04.1990 at 06.00 p.m., seeing Jaya, in the house of Ammasikani, the deceased told Ammasikani's husband Selvamani not to keep Jaya in the house as she was of a questionable character. This was objected to by Ammasikani and her husband Selvamani. A Small quarrel arose between them. Later on, they were dispersed. On the next day, on 19.04.1990, at about 09.00 a.m. when the accused Suyambulingam was passing by that side, the deceased criticised the conduct of Ammasikani, who was standing in front of her house. THE deceased also spoke ill of her that she gave birth to a child through the accused. Immediately, the accused removed his chappal and beat the deceased on his cheek. THE deceased told the accused not to beat him on cheek, but to beat him on the back. Saying so, he turned his back towards the accused. THE accused beat him on the back and kicked him from behind. THE deceased fell on a cot which was nearby. This was witnessed by P.W.1 and her son P.W.2, daughter Manjula, granddaughters Rani, Radha, Lalitha and her neighbours. Sometime after, the accused went away from the scene. THEreafter, P.W.1 and others lifted the deceased, who was lying down, and laid him on the cot. THE deceased felt uneasy. After sometime, the deceased went to one Chandrabose's lands, where he was doing cooly work. While he was walking, he was not walking properly. THErefore, P.W.1 followed him; After sometime, the deceased fell down vomitting. THEn P.W.1 went near him. She found the deceased dead. THEreafter, the matter was informed to her son working nearby place and thereafter, they went to the Village Administrative Officer and informed him about this fact. THEn P.W.1 along with her son went to the Thattarmadam Police Station at around 02.00 p.m. and informed about the occurrence.

(3.) THE Sessions Court framed charges under Section 302 I.P.C. P.W.1 who is the wife of the deceased and P.W.2 the son of the deceased have spoken about the occurrence which took place both on the previous day and in the morning of the date of occurrence. From their evidence, it is clear that there was no weapon used by the deceased, but only chappals were used to beat the deceased, and the deceased fell down due to the beating on his back by the accused. THE medical evidence corroborates the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. THE learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case, acquitted the accused of the offence under Section 302 I.P.C., but found him guilty of the offence punishable under Section 325 I.P.C. Against this, the present appeal has been filed.