MUTHIAH KONAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE were totally eight accused, namely, A-1 to A-8. They were convicted for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302, 302 read with 149, 201 and 506-I IPC, by the II Additional Sessions Judge, tirunelveli. Challenging the said conviction, A-1 filed C. A. No. 984 of 2001; A-2 filed C. A. No. 874 of 2001; A-4 to A-7 filed C. A. No. 750 of 2001 and A-8 filed C. A. No. 726 of 2001. THERE is no appeal by A-3.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the conviction are as follows: (a) THE deceased Paramasivam is the son of P. W. 1 ammayappa Pillai. P. W. 1 is residing at Panneer Oothu village. He owns lands to the west of his village. THEre is a well and pumpset in his lands. A-3 Kotti muthu Konar owns lands to the east of the lands of P. W. 1. A-4 Sankara Pandi konar and A-8 Muthiah Konar also owns lands, adjacent to the lands of P. W. 1. THEre is a pathway, leading to the lands of P. W. 1, which is situated in the land, belonging to A-4. P. W. 1 and his family members used to go to their well and garden through the said pathway. This was objected to by A-4 and his sons, namely, A-5, A-6 and A-7. THEre was a disturbance. THErefore, A-4 to A-7 filed a civil suit in O. S. No. 316 of 1996 against P. W. 1 Ammayappa Pillai and the deceased Paramasivam and sought for a permanent injunction. Interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs, namely, A-4 to A-7. Due to this, there was enmity between the deceased family and A-4's family. A-8 Muthiah Konar, as noted above, was owning lands near the well belonging to P. W. 1. A-8 requested the deceased and P. W. 1 to permit him to take water from the said well. However, they did not oblige. THEn, A-8 wanted to purchase the well. THE said offer was also objected to by P. W. 1 and the deceased. With regard to this, there was enmity between them. (b) One week prior to the date of occurrence, sprayer and other items kept in the pump shed, situated near the well belonging to P. W. 1, were found missing. P. W. 1 Ammayappa Pillai suspected that A-1 must have committed theft of those articles. THErefore, he complained to the panchayatdars against A-1 and due to this, there was an ill-feeling between a-1's family and P. W. 1. (c) THE fateful occurrence took place on 17. 05. 1997. At about 10. 15 a. m. , the deceased Paramasivam, P. W. 1 Ammayappa Pillai, P. W. 2 valliyammal, daughter of P. W. 1, were proceeding to their well. When they were passing through the pathway, A-1 to A-8 appeared at the scene and surrounded the deceased. A-1 to A-3 were armed with aruvals and A-4 to A-8 were having sticks in their hands. When P. Ws. 1 and 2 were about to come near the deceased, they were threatened. THEn, A-1 to A-3, armed with aruvals, began to attack the deceased. A-1 cut the deceased on his stomach; A-2 cut the deceased on the left side of the neck and A-3 attacked the deceased, inflicting injury on the right palm, as a result of which, the deceased fell down. Even thereafter, A-1 to A-3 inflicted injuries on various parts of the body of the deceased, by attacking him indiscriminately. At that time, the deceased's wife Meena and another son of P. W. 1 Sivagurunathan came to the scene and shouted at the accused. But, A-4 to A-8 threatened them. A-8 asked the other accused to lift the body of the deceased and throw it into the well. Accordingly, A-4 and A-5 dragged the deceased, by pulling his legs, to the well and thereafter, A-1, A-4, A-5 and a-8 lifted the body of the deceased and threw it into the well. THEn, they ran away from the scene. When P. W. 1 and others came and peeped into the well, they found the deceased dead. Out of fear, they went back home. After sometime, on coming to know that all the accused left the village, P. W. 1 went to the Police station at THEvarkulam and gave a complaint Ex. P-1 at 02. 00 p. m. to sub-Inspector of Police, P. W. 8. THE said complaint was registered for the offences under Sections 147,148,341 and 302 IPC. (d) On receipt of the message, P. W. 9, Inspector of police, took up investigation at 02. 30 p. m. At 03. 30 p. m. , P. W. 9 came to the scene and prepared Observation Mahazar, Ex. P-19 and Rough Sketch, Ex. P-20. He also conducted inquest between 04. 30 p. m. and 07. 00 p. m. and examined the witnesses. He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth. THEn, the body was sent for post-mortem. (e) P. W. 6, Doctor, conducted post-mortem on 18. 05. 1997 at about 12. 00 Noon. Ex. P-17 is the Post-mortem Certificate. In the report, he gave opinion that the deceased died due to shock and haemorrhage and profuse bleeding. (f) P. W. 9 continued the investigation and examined the witnesses. He took steps to arrest the accused. In the meantime, he came to know that A-1, A-2 and A-5 to A-7 surrendered before the Court on 26. 05. 1997. On 06. 06. 1997, P. W. 9 took police custody of the accused. On the confession of the accused, M. O. 1 was recovered from A-1; M. O. 2 was recovered from A-2 and sticks were recovered from A-5, A-6, A-7 and A-8. (g) P. W. 10, the successor Investigating Officer, took up further investigation. After the completion of investigation, he filed a charge sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 I. P. C and other allied offences.

(3.) IN the light of the above documents and other evidence, it is obvious that P. W. 1 was in the habit of giving false evidence against A-4 to A-7. This aspect has been further strengthened by the fact that the improved version has been given, while P. Ws. 1 and 2 deposed in the Court as against A-4 to A-7 as indicated above. Similarly, the motive as against A-8 is that A-8 requested P. W. 1 to permit him to take water from the well and the same was refused and when he offered to purchase the well, P. W. 1 did not oblige for him. This motive, in our view, cannot be a ground for A-8 to come along with other accused to attack the deceased that too, when P. W. 1, against whom A-8 had some grudge, was said to be present in the place of occurrence.