STATE Vs. DURAISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern C. A. No. 985/97 and Crl. R. C. 860/97. The accused was charged and tried for an offence under Section 302 IPC and he was acquitted of the said charge. Aggrieved over the acquittal of the accused in S. C. No. 50 of 1995, C. A. No. 985/97 has been preferred by the State while Crl. R. C. No. 860/97 has been preferred by the complainant.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal and revision could be stated thus :-

(3.) ON 2. 1. 94 during the evening hours, a demand was made by the accused to which the deceased replied that he will pay the amount after harvesting his lands. Even on 3. 1. 94 also the same demand was made by the accused and the deceased gave the same reply, but the accused was not satisfied with the reply and he informed the deceased that he should pay the amount by 10. 00 a. m. on 4. 1. 94 or otherwise he would be finished off. On 4. 1. 94 at about 6. 00 p. m. when P. W. 1 and her husband, the deceased Govindasamy, were in the beetlenut garden of one Krishnan, the accused came there and demanded money from the deceased. As usual the deceased gave a reply that he would pay back after the harvest was over, but the accused was stating that he would go to a civil court to get back the money due on the promissory note. Immediately the deceased replied that he could do so. Immediately the accused took the veech aruval M. O. 1 concealed in the blanket and cut the deceased indiscriminately. The occurrence was not only witnessed by P. W. 1 but also by P. W. 3 who was standing nearby. On seeing the accused cutting the deceased P. W. s 1 and 3 shouted and on hearing the shouting all the villagers gathered. The accused ran away from the place.