PERUMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) First Accused in S.C.No.79 of 1996 on the file of learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Trichy is the Appellant. Aggrieved by the conviction (by the judgment dated 29.08.1996) under Sec.304 (ii) I.P.C. and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years, Appellant / A.1 has preferred this appeal. Accused 2 to 6 were acquitted of all the charges.

(2.) P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6 are related as under:- Periyasamy Thevar - Father (deceased) | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | Subramanian Paramasivam (P.W.6) (P.W.1) | - - - - - - - - | | | | Chitra(PW2) Thaneshwari wife of (P.W.3) P.W.1 Sister-in-law of P.W.1 Accused are related as under:- Chinna Pillai (Father) | - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | | | Perumal (A1) Karuppan (A2) Dharman (A3) | | | | | Bhaskaran (A4) Ponnammal (A6) Palaniammal Daughter of A.2 (A5) wife of A.3 Prosecution witnesses 1, 2 and 6 and the Accused are Pangalis.

(3.) Case of the prosecution in brief could be stated thus:- The Accused and P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 6 are related and Pangalis. On enjoyment and dividing of 3 acres of land in Thenur Village, there was previous enmity between Periasamy and the family of the Accused. P.W.6 - Subramanian is working as driver in Chennai. In Thenur Village, Iyanar Festival was scheduled for 08.06.1993. For celebrating the Festival, P.W.6 came to Thenur Village. At about 1.00 p.m. on 07.06.1993, P.W.6 in a drunken mood questioned A.2 - Karuppan as to why they were frequently quarrelling on the land dispute. He is alleged to have questioned Karpagam, daughter of A.1 - Perumal also. At that time, the Accused have assaulted P.W.6. On hearing about the same, P.W.1 - Paramasivam came to the place and pacified his brother P.W.6. To avoid any further quarrel, P.W.6 was sent to Chennai.