ARONE AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TOTALLY three accused were tried in Sessions Case No. 69 of 1995 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Dindigul Anna District. A1 was charged for offences under Sections 324, 307, 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code; A2 was charged for offences under Sections 324 read with 34, 307 read with 34, and 302 of the Indian Penal Code; A3 was charged for offences under Sections 324, 307 and 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. At the end of trial, the learned Trial Judge acquitted A3 of all the charges. He also acquitted A1 of the charges under Sections 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal code and found him guilty only under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment. A2 was also acquitted of the charges under Sections 324 read with 34 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. However, he was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment. The acquittal of A3 of all the offences and acquittal of A1 and A2 in respect of the offences referred to earlier, have not been challenged by the State. A1 and A2 are the appellants in this appeal against their conviction and life imprisonment. Therefore, we are called upon to decide the correctness of the conviction of A1 under Section 302 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the conviction of A2 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Heard Mr. Shanmugaelayutham, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. K. Chellapandian, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) A 3 is the father of A1 and A2. P.W.1 is the wife of A1. The deceased is her father. P.W. 2 is the wife of the deceased. The prosecution case is that six months after the marriage of P.W.1 with A1, she was driven out of the house on some stated ground, namely, suspecting her fidelity. Thereafter, six months prior to the occurrence, an attempt was made by the accused party to get her back to the household and it had failed. The occurrence in question took place on 02.02.1993 at about 04.00 p.m. The case of the prosecution is that all the accused were on their way to the house of the deceased with the idea of bringing P.W.1 to their home and enroute they had a chance to meet the deceased. P.W.1's evidence is that she and her mother P.W. 2 were a little away and at that time they heard the voice of all the accused in high pitch as well as the voice of the deceased in a high pitch, which made them run towards that place. On reaching that place, P.W. 1 found that A3 and A1 were armed with an aruval and A2 was having a stick with sharp edge and when A3 asked her father, the deceased in this case, to send his daughter with them, her father kept quiet. P.W.1, in her evidence, would state that she told them that since they alone sent her out, why they are quarrelling with her father. According to her, A3, stating that the entire problem revolves around her, cut her on her head with the aruval resulting in a bleeding injury. A1 also cut her on her left upper arm with the aruval, which she tried to ward off and therefore she did not receive any injury. At that time the metal portion of the aruval fell down. The deceased intervened questioning them as to why they are cutting his daughter. At that time, A1 uttered that her father also must be killed and then only the whole problem will be solved. A2 responded immediately to the command of A1, by stabbing her father on the right side body as well as on the hip. On receipt of that injury, when her father turned around, again A2 stabbed him on the chest. M.Os 1 to 3 are the respective weapons of offence in the hands of A3, A1 and A2. This was witnessed by P.W. 4. The accused made good their escape with the weapons of offences. She found her father dead. then the went to the police station, where she laid the complaint, which is Ex.P.1. It is attested by one Thangaraj.

(3.) P .W. 8 is the Sub Inspector of Police in the investigating Police Station before whom at 06.00 p.m. on 02.12.1993 P.W. 1 appeared along with one Thangaraj and gave the complaint, which he reduced into writing. He read it over to her and after she confirming it, he took her signature in it. Ex.P.1 is the said complaint which he registered for offences under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P.11 is the printed first information report. He sent the material record to the Court as well as to other higher officials. P.W. 11 is the investgating officer. At about 06.30 p.m. on the occurrence day he received the material records; commenced the investigation immediately and at 07.15 p.m. reached the scene of occurrence. He prepared Ex. P.9 observation mahazar in the presence of P.W. 4 and another. He also prepared Ex. P.18, rough sketch from the scene of occurrence. He recovered M.Os. 4 and 5, blood stained soil and sample soil, under mahazar, Ex. P.10, attested by P.W. 4 and another. Then in the presence of witnesses and Panchayatdars he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 08.15 p.m. and 12.00 in the midnight. During inquest he examined witnesses and recorded their statements. Ex. P.19 is the inquest report. Then he sent the dead body with a requisition to conduct post -mortem through P.W. 7 Police Constable. P.W. 7 accompanied the dead body with the requisition to the hospital. He was present throughout post -mortem. After the post -mortem he removed M.Os. 6 to 8, (i.e.) personal apparels of the deceased from the dead body and handed over the same to the Investigating Officer and the dead body was given by him to the relatives.