SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole accused in S.C.No.172 of 2018 on the file of the Principal Sessions Court at Trichy, aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 26/9/2019 by which judgment, he had been convicted for offences punishable under Sec. 302 IPC (2 counts) and under Sec. 307 IPC (1 count) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each count for offence punishable under Sec. 302 IPC and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 for each count and in default, to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for each count and also sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Sec. 307 IPC (1 count) and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000.00 and in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment, has filed the present Criminal Appeal.

(2.) It is the case of the prosecution that the de-facto complainant, Panneer (PW-1), son of Chellammal (D1) and nephew of Amaravathy (D2) had lodged a complaint on 14/4/2013 at around 06.30 pm alleging that at around 05.30 pm on the same day, the appellant/accused, Sudhakar, had indiscriminately attacked and caused the death of his mother, Chellammal (D1) and aunt, Amaravathy (D2) and caused injuries to Sathish @ Sathish Kumar (PW-2). On the basis of this complaint, PW-16, Subramanian, Sub Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Trichy, had registered FIR in Cr.No.163 of 2013 for offences punishable under Ss. 294(b), 341, 307, 302 and 506(ii) IPC. On conclusion of trial, the appellant/accused, Sudhakar was acquitted for offences punishable under Ss. 294(b), 341 and 506(ii) IPC, but convicted for offences punishable under Ss. 302 IPC (2 counts) and 307 IPC (one count) and sentenced as aforementioned.

(3.) The facts in brief are that there existed previous enmity between the family of the de-facto complainant, Panneer (PW-1) and the accused, Sudhakar, owing to dispute relating to a garbage pit. In December 2011, three brothers of de-facto complainant by names, Ravi, Ramakrishnan and Elangovan, had attacked Suresh, elder brother of the accused and caused injuries consequent to which, even after taking treatment in hospital, Suresh was forced to remain in the house and died in March 2013. It is contended by the prosecution that the accused, aggrieved over the death of his elder brother, had proclaimed that he would retaliate against any member of the family of the de-facto complainant. Consequent to such threat, the three elder brothers of the de-facto complainant, namely, Ravi, Ramakrishnan and Elangovan, had left the place and resided elsewhere for about 15 days.