RAJENDRAN Vs. STATE REPRESENTED BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants 1 to 3 (A1, A2 and A4) and one Saroja (A3) were prosecuted before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.256/2006, respectively for the following offences: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_3426_TLMAD0_2012-3120131html.htm</FRM> The trial court acquitted Saroja (A3) of all the offences with which she stood charged. It also found all the accused not guilty of the offence under section 447 IPC. Rajendran (A1), Thanjammal (A2) and Venkatesan (A4) were found guilty and convicted by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri vide his judgment dated 24.06.2011 made in S.C.No.256 of 2006 for the following offences. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_3426_TLMAD0_2012-3120132html.htm</FRM> Challenging the said judgment with regard to the conviction and sentence, the appellants (A1, A2 and A4) have brought-forth this appeal on various grounds set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal. For the sake of convenience, the appellants are referred to as accused.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief, is, as follows:- The accused Rajendran, Thanjammal, Saroja and Venkatesan (A1 to A4) are closely related to the deceased Perumal. PW.1-Vennila and PW.2-Thanjammal are respectively the daughter and wife of the deceased Perumal. Thanjammal (A2), is the sister of deceased Perumal. Rajendran (A1) and Saroja (A4) are respectively the son and daughter of A2. Venkatesan (A4) is the brother of deceased Perumal. There was a land dispute between the family of deceased Perumal and the accused persons. On 20.11.2006 at about 9.00 a.m accused 1 to 4 grazed their cattle in the land of Perumal, wherein they had raised maize crops. On seeing the same, PW.1-Vennila, daughter of Perumal, questioned the propriety of their act, pursuant to which, the first accused Rajendran, using unparliamentary words, assaulted PW.1-Vennila on the left hand, lower part of the back side of the chest and hip using MO.1-stick. On hearing the hue and cry of PW.1-Vennila, the deceased Perumal came to the place of occurrence. The fourth accused Venkatesan attacked Perumal and inflicted cut injuries on the head of the deceased using MO.2-bill-hook. First accused Rajendran again using MO.1-stick attacked the deceased Perumal. Thanjammal (A2) and Saroja (A3) kicked the deceased on the scrotum and abdomen repeatedly. Again on the instructions of Thanjammal (A2), Venkatesan (A4) inflicted cut injuries on the head of the deceased Perumal and ran away from the place of occurrence. PW.1-Vennila also sustained injuries in the occurrence. Besides Vennila (PW.1), PW.2-Thanjammal and PW.3 - Panjali were the eye witnesses for the said occurrence. After being attacked by the accused persons, Perumal fell on the ground. PW.4-Subramani and his wife Madhammal, who came there after the occurrence, took the injured persons in a two wheeler to the Government Hospital, Krishnagiri and got them admitted for treatment. On 20.11.2006 at 3.00 p.m. PW.7-Dr.Senthil examined PW.1-Vennila and found the following injuries:

(3.) THE learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri, heard the arguments advanced on either side, considered the evidence in the light of the points urged in the arguments and upon such consideration found Saroja (A3) not guilty of any of the offences with which she stood charged, Rajendran, Thanjammal and Venkatesan (A1, A2 and A4) found not guilty of the charge under section 447 IPC and found Rajendran (A1) guilty of the charges under sections 324, 294(b) and 302 r/w 34 IPC, Thanjammal (A2) found guilty of charge under section 302 r/w 34 IPC and Venkatesan (A4) found guilty of the charges for offences under sections 302 r/w 34 and 506(ii) IPC. After informing the accused 1, 2 and 4 of the decision to hold them guilty, the learned trial judge questioned them regarding punishment under Section 235(2) Cr.P.C and after considering the evidence and the submissions made by the accused regarding the punishment, the trial judge pronounced a judgment acquitting all the four accused in respect of first charge, namely the offence punishable under section 447 IPC, acquitting A3-Saroja in respect of all the charges, namely offences punishable under sections 447 and 109 r/w 302 IPC and convicted A1, A2 and A4 as aforesaid with the punishments indicated supra.