P. KAMATCHI PILLAI Vs. THE STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents 2 and 3 are the accused Nos. 1 & 2 in S.C. No. 64 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul. The first accused stood charged for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and the second accused stood charged under Section 302 IPC. The trial Court, by judgment dated 08.02.2008, acquitted the accused. Challenging the said acquittal, the petitioner, who is the defacto complainant, has come up with this revision.

(2.) THE facts of the case would be as follows;

(3.) I find it difficult to accept the said argument for more than one reasons. First of all, according to the case of the prosecution, the accused No. 2 had pushed the pillow against the face of the deceased until he breathed his last. If that is true, when PWs.1 & 2 had come to the house of deceased, that too after a long time, the deceased would not have been alive. It is in evidence that after their arrival, on their request, PW5 had also rushed to the house of the deceased and found that the deceased was in a serious condition. PW5, therefore, advised them to take him to the hospital. Thus, it is crystal clear that the death was not caused by smothering. It is common knowledge that if once windpipe is opened after smothering for some time, the patient would survive, if he had not already breathed his last. It is in evidence that the deceased was alive until the arrival of PW1 and PW2. Thus, the death would not have been due to smothering.