PERIYA KAMANAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Madurai, the appellants, who were convicted for the offence punishable underSec.302 read with Sec.34, I.P.C., and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, have filed the above appeal.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the prosecution case are as follows: (a)"P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased Jayam. P.Ws.2 and 3 are the sons of P.W.1. The deceased was living with his family at Karugapilai village. The deceased was an agriculturist. He owned a land to the extent of 5 acres. (b)"A-1 and A-2 are brothers, A-3 is the son of A-1. The accused are also doing agricultural work. (c)"A-1 had purchased some land from p.w.7. From the date of purchase A-1 claiming to be the owner of that property attended agricultural work in that land. The deceased Jayam claimed some right over the said prop erty. Accordingly, he had raised objections against A-1 with regard to ownership. He preferred objection petitions before the revenue authorities at the relevant point of time and objection petition filed by the deceased is pending before the D.R.O. This fact has been clearly stated by P.W.2, who is the son of the deceased. (d)"One Elangovan had purchased some land from the in-laws of the deceased. There arose a dispute with regard to the enjoyment of the said property between Elangovan and the deceased. In this connection, a criminal complaint has been lodged by the said Elango. (e)"On 21.7.1999 at about 10.00 a.m., the deceased Jayam accompanied with P.Ws.1 and 2 and proceeded to the Judicial Magistrate Court, Usilampatty, to attend the hearing of the particular case. While they were proceeding near to the Senthil Hospital, the accused 1 to 3, who were also coming from the opposite direction and on seeing the deceased in front of the Senthil Hospital, the accused attacked the deceased with Aruval and caused as many as 17 injuries on his body. As a result of that Jayam died on the spot itself. P.Ws.1 and 2 proceeded to the Usilampatty Police Station and lodged a complaint Ex.P-1 before P.W.11 around 10.50 a.m. (f)"On receipt of the complaint from P.W.1, P.W.11 registered a case under Sec.302, I.P.C. Ex.P-10 is the printed copy of F.I.R. He sent intimation to the Inspector of Police about the registration of the case. Then he forwarded the copies of the F.I.R. to the Judicial Magistrate Court and other police officials through P.W.8, Police Constable. (g)"P.W.13, on receipt of a copy of the F.I.R. from the police station immediately proceeded to the occurrence spot around 11.00 a.m. On seeing the occurrence place, he prepared a rough sketch Ex.P-16 and an observation "mahazar Ex.P-2. In the presence of p.w.5 Ayothi and Thangaraj, he recovered m.os.1 and 2, bloodstained earth and unstained earth respectively, under the cover of Athachi Ex.P-3. He then conducted inquest on the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses and prepared inquest report Ex.P-17. (h)"To know the cause of the death of the deceased, P.W.14 forwarded an instruction to P.W.9 to take the dead body to the Doctor for conducting post-mortem examination. He handed over a requisition letter to the constable with an instruction to produce to same to P.W.13 Doctor. (i)"On receipt of the requisition letter from P.W.14, P.W.13 conducted post- mortem examination around 4 p.m. During the course of post-mortem examination, he found the following injuries on the body of the deceased.

(3.) REFUTING the contentions raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would raise the following contentions: (a)"The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that with regard to property dispute, both witnesses have spoken about this fact in their evidence. It is seen that P.W.2 has spoken elaborately with regard to property dispute which was in existence at the time of occurrence. Even though the investigating officer P.W.14 has not come forward to recover certain documents or copy of the orders in connection with the dispute between the parties from the concerned authorities. However, P.W. 2 has stated this fact in a clear manner. As on the date of occurrence, there was property dispute in existence with regard to enjoyment of the land between the parties. As stated by P.W.2., whatever the objections raised by his father before the revenue authorities ended in failure, however, as on date, an objection petition filed by his father was pending before the D.R.O. (b)"Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that based on the strong motive and enmity against the deceased all the accused Joined together on that particular day and on seeing the deceased in front of the Senthil Hospital all of them attacked the deceased and inflicted as many as 17 injuries by using of Aruval. (c)"With regard to place of occurrence, even though P.W.1 has stated that the said occurrence happened in front of the Vijaya Hospital, it is only a slip of tongue. When considering the evidence of P.W.2 and Exs.P-2 and 14, this fact has been clearly stated therein. With regard to place of occurrence P.W.2 has categorically stated that the said occurrence has taken place in front of Senthil Hospital. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that P.W.1 herself has stated about the place of occurrence in Ex.P-1 that the said occurrence occurred in front of Senthil hospital. (d)"With regard to non mentioning of injuries other than the injuries stated by P.Ws.1 and 2, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that since all the accused joined together and attacked the deceased by using of Aruval, such kind of injuries could have inflicted on the deceased by all the accused. Even though P.Ws.1 and 2 have not spoken about the remaining injuries other than the injuries stated by them, such injuries could have been inflicted when A-1 to A-3 joined together and inflicted such injuries indiscriminately on the deceased. Therefore, the non-explanation of injuries by P.Ws.1 and 2 other than the injuries stated by both during the course of adducing evidence is not at all fatal which affects the prosecution case. (e)"Further, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that no such delay occurred in lodging F.I.R. It is a fact that the prosecution case is mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. Based on the evidence adduced by the eye-witness, viz.,P.Ws.1 and 2 and P.W.13, the learned Judge has come to the conclusion that the case of the prosecution against the accused has been proved.