ANNAMALAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant / accused was convicted under Sec. 302 IPC and Ss. 25(1-B) and 25(1)(b) of Arms Act and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 under Sec. 302 IPC, in default to pay the fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month; and three years Rigorous Imprisonment each under Ss. 25(1-B) and Sec. 25(1)(b) of Arms Act and a fine of Rs.1,000.00 each, in default to pay the fine, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month each. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the accused has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Prosecution case is that PW.1/defacto complainant Thiru.Chinnaiyan is the resident of Aththiyur, Kallangulam Village. PW.2 - Tmt.Rani is his wife and PW.3 - Tmt.Kala is his daughter. Deceased Uma is also his daughter. Deceased Uma was staying with PW.1 along with her son. PW.3 Kala was married to accused Annamalai about two years ago. Due to some quarrel with the accused, PW.3 was also staying with her parents. Accused made two attempts to take his wife along with him and his attempt ended in failure for the reason that the deceased Uma told him that he is harassing PW.3 and therefore, they would not send PW.3 along with him and asked him to come to Aththiyur Kallangulam for living with his wife. PW.1 also refused to send PW.3 along with the accused. On 3/2/2009 at about 7 p.m, accused came to the house of PW.1. On the same date at about 9 p.m, PW.1 had gone to the backyard of his house and found the accused with the country made gun under a teakwood tree. Accused threatened to kill PW.1, if he refused to send PW.3 along with him. Deceased Uma asked him why he was doing like that and told him that they would send Kala tomorrow. However accused told her that she was responsible for not sending his wife along with him and everything would be alright if she is eliminated. So saying, he shot the deceased with a country made gun on her left shoulder, left chest, left stomach and left hip. As a result of the injuries suffered, deceased Uma died on the spot.

(3.) After the case was committed to the Sessions Court, the case was taken cognizance for the offences under Ss. 302 IPC and 25(1- B) and 25(1)(b) of Arms Act, 1959. First Additional District and Sessions Judge framed charges against the accused under Ss. 302 IPC and 25(1-B) and 25(1)(b) of Arms Act 1959 and accused denied the charges and demanded trial.