SEKAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the accused 1 and 3 in S.C. No. 198 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Tiruchirappalli. The second accused was one Mr. Palanimanickam. The Trial Court framed as many as three charges against the accused. The first charge was against all the three accused under Sec. 302 read with 34 I.P.C.; the second charge was against the accused 1 and 2 alone under Sec. 307 read with 34 I.P.C. and the third charge was against the third accused under Sec. 324 I.P.C. By Judgment, dated 15.02.2011, the Trial Court acquitted the second accused from all charges. The Trial Court convicted the first accused under Sec. 302 I.P.C. and the third accused under Sec. 324 I.P.C. For the offence under Sec. 302 I.P.C., the Trial Court sentenced the first accused to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months and sentenced the third accused for the offence under Sec. 324 I.P.C. to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants/accused 1 and 3 are before this Court, with this Criminal Appeal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(2.) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed charges as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as, 11 witnesses were examined and 18 documents were exhibited, besides 6 Material Objects.

(3.) Out of the said witnesses, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 are the eye -witnesses to the occurrence and they have stated about the individual overt acts of all the three accused. P.W. 3 has spoken about the Observation Mahazer and the Rough Sketch prepared at the place of occurrence and the recovery of the bloodstained earth and the sample earth from the place of occurrence. P.W. 4 has spoken about the arrest of the second accused and the consequential recovery of M.O. 1 to M.O. 3 at his instance. P.W. 5 has spoken about the injuries found on the deceased and on the first accused. P.W. 6, Dr. Geetha Sankari, has spoken about the injuries found on P.W. 1 and the treatment given to him. P.W. 7, Dr. Shanmugam, has stated that he declared the deceased dead and gave intimation to the police. P.W. 8 is the former owner of the disputed land, under whom, the accused were the cultivating tenants. P.W. 9 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and the final opinion given by her. P.W. 10 has spoken about the registration of the case and P.W. 11 has spoken about the investigation done.