ARUNACHALAM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Arunachalam was tried and convicted for an offence under Section 302 IPC, for having caused the death of one Thiruvannamalaiyan. Originally, the appellant Arunachalam and another accused, namely Subramani (A-2) were tried for offence under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 109 IPC, of whom, A-2 has been acquitted, and the appellant alone has been convicted as referred to above. Hence this appeal by A-1.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief, is as follows: a) A-1 and A-2 are cousin brothers. P.W.2-Mariamma is the wife of the deceased Thiruvannamalaiyan. Both the accused family and the deceased family were living at Melpattu village. A-2 owned 1 acre 40 cents of land in the said village. This land was leased out to the deceased for Rs.3,000/- for a period of five years. He also allowed the deceased to possess and enjoy the said land and take the yield arising therefrom. After five years period was over, the deceased demanded for the return of the lease amount. But, A-2 refused to make the payment. Due to this, there was a frequent quarrel between A-2 and the deceased. P.W.2 was often sent by the deceased to the house of A-2 asking for the return of the payment. In spite of that no amount was given by A-2. Since the lease amount was given by the deceased to A-2 at the instance of P.W.2, the wife of the deceased, there was a frequent quarrel between the deceased and P.W.2. b) On the day of occurrence, i.e. on 16.05.1994 at about 5.30 p.m, while the wordy quarrel was going on between the deceased and his wife P.W.2 near the land of A-1, she pleaded with A-1, who was passing that way, to save her by his intervention. THEn, A-1 asked the deceased not to beat P.W.2 anymore and he tried to pacify both of them. But, the deceased scolded A-1, stating that he was supporting P.W.2, because he was having illegal relationship with her. THEn the deceased again began to beat P.W.2. Efforts taken by A-1 to separate them failed. THErefore, he took a wooden log found near a tree and beat the deceased on his head. At that time, A-2 also instigated A-1 to attack the deceased. THE incident was witnessed by P.Ws.3 to 5, who are the villagers. Both of the accused on seeing them, sped away from the scene. c) Next day i.e., on 17.05.1994 at about 10.00 p.m, A-1 went to Village Administrative Officer-P.W.1 and gave an Extra-Judicial Confession, confessing that he attacked the deceased with the wooden log due to the quarrel and also handed over the said wooden log-M.O.1 to the Village Administrative Officer. P.W.1 recorded the statement Ex.P-1 and obtained the signature from him as well as the signature from the village menial-P.W.6. d) THEn P.W.1 and P.W.6 proceeded to the scene of occurrence along with A-1 to see the dead body. Since the dead body was not found at the spot, they went to the house of the deceased where the body was kept and saw the dead body with the injuries. e) THEreafter, they went to the police station on 18.05.1994 at about 9.00 a.m. P.W.1 prepared Ex.P-2 report and produced the accused as well as M.O.1 wooden log and also handed over the report Ex.P-1 to P.W.15, the Sub Inspector of Police, on the basis of which, P.W.15 then registered a case for an offence under Section 302 and 302 r/w 109 IPC. He sent the complaint and the First Information Report to the Court and the superior officers. f) P.W.16 the Inspector of Police went to the spot at 12.30 p.m. He observed all the formalities by preparing the Observation Mahazar and the Rough Sketch and he conducted inquest over the body of the deceased. On the same day, he examined P.Ws.2 to 5 and the panchayatdars. THE dead body was then sent for postmortem. g) P.W.11, the Doctor conducted postmortem on 19.05.1994 at about 9.00 a.m. He found as many as three injuries on the body of the deceased and gave opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to the injuries on the head. Ex.P-8 is the postmortem certificate issued by him. h) P.W.16 continued the investigation and subsequently, arrested A-2. He then arranged for sending the material objects for chemical analysis. After completion of the investigation, he filed the charge sheet against the accused.

(3.) WE have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in respect of these aspects.