PALANISAMY AND CHINNASAMY ALIAS VAKKIL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS four in number were tried in S. C. No. 275 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Court of Sessions , Salem for the following offences: Section 294 (b) I. P. C.- A1 and A2 Section 302 read with 34 I. P. C.- A1 to A4 Section 324 I. P. C.- A3 and A4 At the end of the trial, the learned trial Judge found all the accused guilty of the offences referred to earlier and sentenced A1 and a2 to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 294 (b) I. P. C. ; imprisonment for life against all the accused for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I. P. C. and one year rigorous imprisonment to accused 3 and 4 for the offence under Section 324 I. P. C. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence the present appeal. Heard mr. R. Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and mr. N. R. Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that accused 1 and 2 at about 7. 30 p. m. on 10. 2. 2002 abused Muthulakshmi, aged 13 in a filthy language and in the course of the same transaction, A1 poured kerosene on Muthulakshmi; A2 threw a lighted match stick on her and A3 and A4 prevented P. W. 1 from rescuing muthulakshmi, leading to the death of Muthulakshmi at 11. 20 p. m. on 18. 2. 2002 and therefore punishable for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I. P. C. It is the further case of the prosecution that in the course of the same transaction, A3 and A4 had also assaulted P. W. 1 with sticks causing injury on his person and therefore they are punishable for the offence under Section 324 i. P. C. In substantiation to their case, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 13 and marked Exs. P. 1 to P. 24 and M. Os. 1 to 4. THE defence examined a police constable on their side as D. W. 1 and marked Ex. D. 1, the statement of Muthulakshmi since deceased, which she is stated to have given while alive.

(3.) P. W. 3 is a resident of the same place where P. Ws. 1,2 and the deceased were living. He would state that P. W. 1 told him that his grand daughter (since deceased) complained to him of the incident that took place prior to the occurrence in question, during which she was abused; P. W. 1 questioned accused 1 and 2 as to why they had done like that, for which, accused 1 and 2 responded stating that they would behave only like that. However, he would admit that he had not seen that earlier occurrence and he only heard about it. As far as the occurrence proper is concerned, he would state that when he was in the tea shop at 7. 30 p. m. , persons present there told him that there was a commotion in his brother's house and accordingly he went there, where he found Muthulakshmi standing outside her house. He also saw the first accused pouring kerosene on Muthulakshmi from the container which he was having and A2 throwing a lighted match stick on her. All of them went to the rescue of Muthulakshmi and at that time, P. W. 1 was also assaulted. P. W. 1 and muthulakshmi were taken to the hospital. P. W. 4 is the mother of the deceased. She would state that around 7. 30 p. m. on the occurrence day, her daughter was set fire to and her father-in-law was also assaulted. She also noticed that her daughter crying in pain. She also noticed the first accused throwing down the kerosene container and then running, while A2 throwing down the match box and running. She tried to rescue her daughter along with others. P. W. 5 witnessed the preparation of Ex. P. 2 the observation mahazar and recovery of the incriminating objects under Ex. P. 3 as referred to earlier. P. W. 13 conducted inquest over the dead body and prepared Ex. P. 24 the inquest report. After completing all the legal formalities, P. W. 13 filed the final report against the accused before the Court on 30. 4. 2002 for offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 294 (b) and 307 I. P. C.