RAMESH Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the third accused in S.C.No.199 of 2000 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil. Altogether, there were three accused including the appellant. The first accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 302 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The second accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant/third accused stood charged for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 302 r/w 109 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court found all the accused guilty under all the above charges. So far as the appellant is concerned, for offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week, for offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months, for the offence under Section 302 r/w Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The first accused was also sentenced like the petitioner. The second accused was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and for the offence under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code, he was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one week. (This Court is informed that the first and second accused have passed away). The appellant/third accused has come up with this Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.1064 of 2002 challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on him.

(2.) The first and second accused preferred similar appeals in C.A.Nos.1081 of 2002 and 1400 of 2003. (Those two appeals have already been dismissed as abated). Thus, now before this Court, the appeal preferred by the present appellant in C.A.No.1064 of 2002 alone is available for disposal.

(3.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.1 is a resident of Railway Colony in Kottar at Nagercoil. The deceased was also a resident of the said Colony. Both were employed in Railways. On 22.12.1999, at about 05.00 p.m., these three accused, who have got nothing to do with the said Colony, came there and were using filthy language against each other. P.W.1 intercepted them and warned them not to behave in such a disorderly and indecent manner, in that locality, since it was flooded with houses. All the three accused went away. Again on 24.12.1999, at about 03.45 p.m., P.W.1 was returning to his house in the Railway Colony from his office. He was proceeding from South towards North on the Street. At that time, all the three accused came from the opposite direction. On seeing P.W.1, all the three accused shouted at him and questioned the authority of P.W.1 about the happenings on 22.12.1999. They questioned P.W.1 as to what was his authority to question them. Then, all the three accused pulled the shirt of P.W.1 and dragged him near to the house of one Leelavathi. At that place, the first accused slapped him on his right cheek. The third accused bite him on his right hand. The first accused again slapped him. Suddenly, the second accused took out a knife from his waist and attempted to stab P.W.1. The deceased Baskaran, on noticing the same, rushed to the place of occurrence. He separated P.W.1 from these accused. Then, P.W.1 went away. At that time, it is alleged that the appellant/third accused again questioned him about his authority to question them regarding the behaviour. Suddenly, the second accused took out a knife and stabbed the deceased. The deceased fell down and sustained injury on his chest. All the three accused ran away from the scene of occurrence. The occurrence was witnessed by P.Ws.3,5 and 6. (P.W.6 turned hostile and he has not supported the case of the prosecution).