KANDAN Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.105 of 2009 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC-II), Thoothukudi. He stood charged for the offences under Sections 302 IPC and 25(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. The trial Court by judgment, dated 25.10.2010 found him guilty under both the charges and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Indian Arms Act. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:-

(3.) On 26.01.2008, at about 05.00 p.m. PW1, PW2 and the deceased were in the house, which is in the ground floor of the house. They were actually sitting together in a room and they were conversing. Suddenly, the accused climbed down through the stairs from the first floor of the house. At that time, he was carrying a country made gun. On reaching the room, he shouted at the deceased stating that unless the deceased was eliminated, he would not be in a position to get his due share in the house. The accused had lost his right hand already. He has got only left hand. With his left hand, using the country made gun, he shot at the deceased and it fell on the neck of the deceased. The deceased fell down. Out of fear, PWs1 and 2 rushed out of the house. Not stopping with that, the accused dragged the body of the deceased outside the house. Thereafter, after leaving the body on the verandah of the house, he left the place of occurrence along with the gun in a TVS-50 Motor Cycle. The occurrence was witnessed by PWs1 and 2 as well as one Sagadevan. After the accused had left the place of occurrence, PWs 1 and 2 raised alarm, which attracted the neighbours. PWs 3 and 4, who are the neighbours, according to the case of the prosecution, rushed to the spot and witnessed the occurrence.