M SATHIYA PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, arrayed as A.1 and A.2, along with A.3 to A.5, were tried by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No: III, Coimbatore, in S.C. No: 138 of 2011 for offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with 34 and 149 I.P.C. By a judgment dated 23.12.2011 while the trial Judge, acquitted A.3 to A.5 of all the charges, found both the appellants - A.1 and A.2, guilty of offence under Section 302 read with Sec. 34 I.P.C. and sentenced both of them to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo six months simple imprisonment. Challenging the said judgment, the appellants are before this Court in this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the deceased Manikandan in this case was residing at Kothavadi Village. He loved Shanmuga Priya, who is the sister of the 1st accused. Shanmuga Priya also accepted his love and was moving with Manikandan. Later, on coming to know about the drinking habit of Manikandan, she started staying away from him. So Manikandan was continuously harassing her. Therefore, Shamuga Priya complained about this to A.1. A.1 along with the other accused called Manikandan to a remote place and was waiting to warn him. Accordingly, on 05.09.2010, they brought Manikandan to Palanisamy Gounder's garden at Kothavady and told him that A.1 is looking for bridegroom for Shanmuga Priya and therefore Manikandan has to stop his harassment towards Shanmuga Priya. Manikandan had told them that he would not allow Shanmuga Priya to get married to somebody else. Therefore, all the accused, in an unlawful assembly, attacked Manikandan and killed him on the spot. Thus, all the accused had committed offences punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. is the prosecution's version.

(3.) In support of its case, Prosecution had examined P.Ws. 1 to 23 and marked exhibits P.1 to P.29 and produced M.Os. 1 to 12. Though no witness was examined on behalf of the accused, they had marked one document as D.1.