RAJA ALIAS RAJAKKANNU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the accused in S. C. No. 92 of 1986 on the file of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli,

(2.) HE faced trial for offences under Sec. 302, I. P. C. and sec. 506, Part II, I. P. C. (3 counts ). HE was found guilty under Sec. 302, i. P. C. convicted thereunder and sentenced to imprisonment for life. HE was also found guilty under Sec. 506, Part II, I. P. C. (2 counts), convicted thereunder and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for two years under each count. HE was, however, found not guilty in respect of one count under Sec. 506, Part II, i. P. C. and acquitted thereof. All the sentences were, however, directed to run concurrently.

(3.) THE accused, when questioned under Sec. 313, Crl. P. C. as respects the incriminating circumstances available in evidence against him, denied his complicity in the crime. He also filed written statement to the following effect: (a) He denied the presence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 in the scene. Besides, he would state that the version as painted by the prosecution, is divorced of the realities of the situation, in the sense of suppressing material facts relatable to the genesis and origin of the occurrence. He would further project the manner and methodology of occurrence. According to him, there was want of cordial atmosphere or so to say embittered relationship between him and the deceased who was residing in the house of P. W. 1 situate adjacent to his house. THEre is a lane in between the two houses. Respecting the use of the lane very often, skirmishes and quarrels arose between the two families and as a consequence the deceased was nurturing a grievance and animosity towards him. On the morning of the day of occurrence, a skirmish arose between them. (b) At about 5. 00 p. m. on the fateful day, when he was proceeding to his lands, he happened to meet the deceased. On seeing him, the deceased proclaimed, "you fellow" quarrelled with me" I will see that you are once and for all done away with. " So saying, all of a sudden and quite unexpectedly he pushed him down. While so falling, he sustained an injury on his right cheek, as a consequence of that a portion of his face coming into contact with a stone, lying on the ground. After his fall on the ground and while he was lying, with his face facing sky, the deceased sat on him and grappled and throttled his neck with his right hand, the consequence of which was, there was occlusion of air from his nose, raising a reasonable apprehension in his mind that in all probability there was imminence of threat to his life at his hands, placed in such a predicament situation, to took out a knife and inflicted a stab on the person of the deceased in rather a bid to save his life. No sooner the deceased did receive the stab than he fell on the ground. THEreafter he ran away from the scene. (c) He cited one Madhiseelan, son of Ramalingam, to be examined on his side as a witness. However, he did not choose to examine him and his examination had been dispensed with.