KUTTIAPPA GOUNDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant five in number stands convicted in S.C. No. 42 of 2003 on the file of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. THE conviction of A1 and A3 to A5 is under Section 147 I.P.C., the conviction of A2 is under Section 142 I.P.C. and the conviction of all the accused is under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. For the gravest offence among the three, each of the accused stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/- carrying a default sentence. THErefore, they are challenging their conviction in this appeal. Heard V. K. Muthusamy, learned Senior counsel appearing for A1, A2 and A4; A.Kumarasamy for A3 and A5 and V. Arul, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that at about 6.00 p.m. on 29.05.2002 all the accused by forming themselves into members of unlawful assembly (A2 alone armed with a deadly weapon) assaulted Ramasamy to his death and therefore, punishable as referred to earlier. To substantiate their case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 15 besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M. Os. 1 to 13. A1 and A4 are husband and wife, A2 is their son; A.3's father and A.1 are brothers; A5 is the mother of A.3; P.Ws. 1 and 2 are wife and daughter of the deceased. THE deceased and A1 are agnates. THEre is admittedly, a property dispute between the two groups. THEir lands are lying contiguous to each other separated by a common ridge. About a year prior to the occurrence, over that property dispute A1, A2 and A4 caused grievous hurt to P.W.1's husband, namely he suffered a fracture. However, having regard to the thick relationship between the parties and with a view to have the problem solved by convening a panchayat, no complaint was given to the police. At 5.30 p.m. an 29.05.2002, P.W.1 would state that, her husband left for the lands to cut grass and cholam crops. He left asking P.W.1 and their daughters to follow him to bring back the harvested load. P.Ws.1 and 2 followed him five minutes later. At that time all the accused were working in their contiguous land. Her husband was cutting grass in his lands. THE accused objected stating as to why he is cutting grass in the common ridge and saying so they came running towards him. Her husband fearing danger ran towards west hotly chased by the accused. In the lands of one Palanisamy Gounder all the accused surrounded her husband. THE first accused, picking up a wood used for fencing the lands and A3 and A4, picking up dry coconut stalk available there, assaulted her husband. A2 with aruval in his hands also attacked him. THE first accused repeatedly assaulted her husband. All the accused criminally intimidated them not to near the place and, therefore, P.Ws.1 and 2 were standing at a distance and watching. She would admit that, therefore she cannot specifically give the overt act of each of the accused and the situs of the injury. However, she would add that A2 with aruval caused injuries on her husband's head and when P.W.1 raised a hue and cry, the second accused threatened her saying that he would kill her. A.3 and A.4 repeatedly attacked her husband with dry coconut leave stalks and A.5 kicked repeatedly on her husband's stomach and neck. He also stood on her husband's body. All. the five accused repeatedly kicked her husband. THE accused threatened P.Ws.1 and 2 that they would harm them also and, therefore, out of fear P.W.1 went back home with her daughters which included P. W.2. THEy were waiting till 10.00 p.m. for Ramasamy, since deceased, to return. But he did not return at all. THErefore, they went to the house of P.W.3 who is the elder brother of Ramasamy (his house is at a distance of one furlong) and in his company they went to the scene of occurrence. It was 11.00 p.m. at that time and they found Ramasamy lying down motionless. Around him the dry coconut leave stalks and the aruval, (weapon of offence in the hands of A2) was also there. THEy found Ramasamy dead. THEre is no bus facility during night time and, therefore at 7.00 a.m. in the next day morning they went to the police station where she gave the complaint, Ex.P.l. She identified M.Os. 1 to 3 as the weapon of offences in the hands of the accused; M.O.4, the sickle used by her husband in cutting the grass; M.O.5, her husband's towel, M.O.6 pair of chappel used by her husband; M.O.7 loin cloth and M.O.8 waist chord. P.W.2 the daughter of P.W.1 and the deceased had given evidence regarding the property dispute between the two groups and the occurrence proper more or less on the same lines as deposed by P.W.1.

(3.) AN incised wound " " " " " cm on the medial aspect of left middle finger with fracture of proximal phalanx.