MOHANDOSS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, four in number, who, in this judgment, will be referred to as A-1 to A-4 in the order they were arrayed before the learned Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Sessions Case No.167 of 1994, challenge their conviction and sentence by preferring the above appeal. The allegation against them is that at 6.00 a.m. on 4.3.93, they wrongfully restrained Sundaramoorthy, the deceased in the case, while he was coming in a cycle and that thereafter, indiscriminately cut him with aruvals, resulting in his death. The learned trial Judge, finding all the accused guilty, sentenced each one of them to one month simple imprisonment under Section 341 I.P.C., while he sentenced them to suffer imprisonment for life for the offence of murder.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is as follows:- P.W.1 is the father of the deceased and P.W.2 is the younger brother of the deceased. They were residing at Thuraiyur village. P.W.4 was also residing in the same village. About three years prior to the date of incident, P.W.1 obtained lease to catch fish from a temple tank from P.W.6. A-1 and his henchmen were preventing P.W.1 from catching fish in the said tank and therefore, P.W.1 had to file a civil suit before the Court of District Munsif at Kumbakonam. He also obtained a permanent injunction and therefore, there were ill-feelings between A-1 and his friends, A-2 to A-4 on the one side and the deceased family on the other side. On 1.3.93, a private complaint was given by A-2 against the deceased and another alleging that they have damaged his scooter. This is said to be the motive for the occurrence, which took place at 6.00 a.m. on 4.3.93.

(3.) On 4.3.93 at 6.00 a.m., the deceased left the house for Palayanallur village to get agricultural labourers. P.W.1 and his younger son, P.W.2, went to a tamarind tree to pick up tamarind fruits and on the north of the tamarind tree, there was a temple. While P.Ws.1 and 2 were picking tamarind fruits, they saw the deceased coming from east in a cycle. At that time, A-1 to A-4 were seen rushing towards the deceased Sundaramoorthy and each were in possession of an aruval. The deceased was prevented from proceeding in his cycle and A-4 commenced the attack by cutting him on the left hand. The deceased, dropping the cycle, ran towards west, chased by A-1 to A-4. They caught hold of the deceased and inflicted indiscriminate cuts upon his body. Thereafter, they ran away from the place. P.Ws.1 to 5 and one Manoharan, who were present, witnessed the incident. At the scene, a moped was seen parked. P.Ws.1 and 2 went near Sundaramoorthy, where he was cut and on examining him, found him dead. P.W.1 left the scene of occurrence to Nachiyar Koil police station and narrated the incident to P.W.8, the Sub-Inspector, at 10.00 a.m. and the Sub-Inspector asked P.W.1 to give a written complaint and accordingly, P.W.1 gave a written complaint, detailing the incident. The said complaint is Ex.P.1. On the complaint, Ex.P.1, P.W.8 registered a case in Crime No.152 of 1993 against the accused. A copy of the printed first information report is Ex.P.4. The express reports were despatched to the higher officials.