IN RE: THANGARAJ AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOUR persons were tried before the learned Sessions Judge of Ramanathapuram Division on a charge of murder of one ThangaKumar in pursuance of their common intention, under Section 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. The first and second accused were also charged under Section 307 I.P.C. for attempting to murder P.W. 1. The learned Sessions Judge, while finding that the four accused had a common intention in attacking Thangakumar held that their intention was only to cause such injuries as were likely to cause death and that they would be guilty under Section 304 (part 1), I.P.C., read with S. 34 I.P.C. He accordingly convicted them and sentenced them each to rigorous imprisonment for seven years. Regarding P.W. 1, he convicted the first accused under Section 324, I.P.C. and the second accused under Section 326, I.P.C. and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for three years and five years respectively, and directed the sentences to run concurrently with the previous sentences. The accused have preferred C. A. 49 to 52 of 1971 against their convictions. The State has preferred C.A. 285 of 1971 contending that the learned Sessions Judge should have convicted the four accused under Section 302 read with S. 34 I.P.C.

(2.) THE attack on Thangakumar (deceased) and witness Ramalingaswami (P.W. 1) took place on 29th April 1970 (A Wednesday) about 11 -30 a.m. when they were coming from north to south on the Perayur Valayankulam road, marked in the investigation officer's sketch Ex. P. 22. The background of the occurrence is this: P.W. 6 Gurusami is the brother -in -law of the deceased. The third accused Palaniswami had illicit intimacy with Lakshmi, wife of P.W. 6. P. W. 6 therefore discarded her. One Danushkodi, the maternal uncle's daughter of the third accused was to have married the third accused in accordance with their caste custom of preferential right, but, because of the intimacy of the third accused with the wife of P. W. 6, Dhanuskodi refused to marry the third accused and, instead, preferred to live with P. W. 6. P. W. 6 took her to Senthurai about 80 miles away, about one and a half months before the occurrence. His brother -in -law Thangakumar (deceased in this case) was helping him by sending him rice, dhal etc. This irritated the third accused and also the other three accused. The second accused is the brother of the third accused, The fourth accused has married their sister. The first accused is related to the fourth accused. The prosecution suggests that, because Thangakumar (deceased) was helping P. W. 6, the four accused attacked him. The reasons for the attack on P.W. 1 was that he was the first cousin of the deceased and was his close associate. The attack on him was only incidental.

(3.) SOMETIME later, P.W 4 and his family reached the place. P.W. 4 saw P.W. 1 lying injured near the pump shed of Kuppuswami Raja and Thangakumar hovering between life and death on the road side about 75 ft. to the south west of where P.W. 1 was (See the sketch and the evidence of the Circle Inspector P.W. 13 about the exact distances). P.W. 4 says that Thangakumar asked him for water. He brought some water, drenching his towel, and gave it to Thangakumar. Thangakumar told him that Setharaj, Thangaraj, Palaniswami and Sakkarai (names of the four accused) had cut him. P.W. 4 then went back to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 asked him for water. P.W. 4 gave him water. P.W. 1 also told P.W. 4 that the four accused had attacked him. P.W. 1 asked P.W. 4 to go and see Thangakumar. P.W. 4 went back. By that time Thangakumar was dead. P.W. 4 reported it to P.W. 1. P.W. 1 asked P.W. 4 to give information in the village. P W. 4 met Sangili, the Vettryan (village servant) and informed him of what had happened. The village servant went and informed the village headman.