VELUSAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 10 have preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No. 1107 of 2002, challenging their conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under section 302 r/w 149 I. P. C. , and Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 147 I. P. C. Totally there are 10 accused, out of which the trial Court acquitted A4 to a9. Challenging the same, the State has preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No. 943 of 2005. P. W. 5, the wife of the deceased has preferred the Revision in Crl. R. C. No. 252 of 2003 against the acquittal in respect of A4 to A9.

(2.) THE short facts leading to the conviction are as follows:- (a) The deceased Anandan was elected as Vice-President of Naraikinaru Village panchayat. He belongs to Udayar Community. A10 ganesan, who belongs to Gounder Community was elected as President of the said Village Panchayat. (b) The villagers had a grievance against A10 that he was not extending help to other Community people. On the other hand, he was helping only the people who belong to his Community. The villagers complained to the Vice-President about the attitude of A10. The deceased being the Vice-President, raised the issue. Ultimately, the people gathered there and locked the premises of the Panchayat Board, to prevent A10, to use the premises as office premises. This was on 14. 8. 1997. (C) One month later, i. e. on 15. 9. 1997, A10 came to the panchayat Board Office and broke open the lock of the panchayat Office and entered into it. The next day, i. e. on 16. 9. 1997, at about 5. 30 P. M. the deceased and other witnesses along with others came to the panchyayat Board Office to question the act of A10, who broke open the lock of the premises. There was a clash between two groups, resulting which, both the parties sustained injuries. Ultimately, A10 instigated the other accused to attack the deceased again. In order to escape from the clutches of A10 and his men, the deceased Anandan ran towards naraikinaru Co-operative Society Office, which is adjacent to the Panchayat Board Office. (d) After entry into the naraikinaru Co-operative Society Office, the deceased bolted the door from inside. On noticing, that the deceased was taking refuge in the society Office, the watchman of the Society locked the door from outside. The accused persons were standing in front of the Society Office and shouted at the deceased asking to come out. On hearing the news, P. W. 4, the son of the deceased and P. W. 5, the wife of the deceased came to the scene of occurrence. They also saw all the 10 accused standing in the scene of occurrence, calling the deceased to come outside. The deceased was inside the Society Office, along with P. W. 6 chellamuthu. They shouted back stating that they would come out only at the arrival of police. (e) Then, A1 to A3, claiming themselves as police persons, asked the deceased to come out. Believing those words, the deceased and P. W. 6 came out and noticed that the police did not come to the scene of occurrence. On seeing the deceased and P. W. 6 coming out, after driving out P. W. 6, the accused caught hold of the deceased and dragged him to a place near Pillayar Koil. On the instigation of A10, A1 beat the deceased on his stomach with wooden log. A2 and A3 beat the deceased on his legs with the wooden log. Other accused persons kicked the deceased. The deceased fell down. Even thereafter, the accused persons continued to kick the deceased. When P. W. 5, the wife of the deceased intervened, she was also attacked by A4 with wooden log. Thereupon, the accused persons left the place of occurrence with the weapons. (f) Thereafter, P. W. 4, the son of the deceased took the deceased to rasipuram Government Hospital, where P. W. 8 gave treatment to the deceased and issued ex. P1 Accident Register Copy. Since the condition of the deceased was serious, p. W. 8 referred the deceased to the Salem Medical College Hospital. (g) In the meantime, at about 3. 30 a. M. on 17. 9. 1997, P. W. 18, the sub-Inspector of Police proceeded to Government Hospital, rasipuram and obtained a complaint (Ex. P. 18) from the deceased. A case was registered in Crime No. 251/1997 under sections 147, 341, 323 and 506 (ii) I. P. C. He prepared printed F. I. R. Ex. P. 19. (h) Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the Salem Medical college Hospital, where P. W. 15 gave treatment to the deceased and Issued Ex. P. 13 Accident register Copy. On 17. 9. 1997 at 6. 15 a. m. , the deceased died. Death intimation (Ex. P. 14) was sent to the police. On receipt of the same, P. W. 18, the Sub-Inspector of Police altered the case into one u/s 302 I. P. C. , and sent intimation to the Court and the higher police officials. (i) P. W. 19, the Inspector of Police on receipt of the message, proceeded to the scene of occurrence, prepared rough sketch (Ex. P. 20), and observation mahazar (Ex. P. 22 ). Then, Inquest was conducted. Ex. P. 21 is the Inquest report. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem. (j) P. W. 16, the Doctor attached to the Salem Medical College Hospital, conducted post-mortem on the body of the deceased at 3. 13 p. m. on 17. 9. 1997. He found as many as 8 injuries on the body of the deceased. He gave an opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to the injury to spleen in Ex. P. 16, the postmortem certificate. (k) On 18. 9. 1997, P. W. 19 arrested the accused A1 and A9. On the voluntary confession of A1 (Ex. P. 3), M. O. I was recovered. On 22. 9. 1997, he arrested A5 and a8. In the meantime, he came to know A2, A3 and A10 had surrendered before the Court. Thereafter, police custody was obtained. On the confession of a10 and A2, the wooden log (M. O. 2) was recovered. A. 3 also gave a confession and in pursuant to which, M. O. 3, another wooden log was recovered. All the material objects were sent for chemical examination. P. W. 19, examined other witnesses. After completion of the investigation, he filed a charge sheet against all the accused A1 to A10 under Sections 147, 302 r/w 149 I. P. C. (I) During the course of trial, P. Ws. 1 to 19 were examined, Exs. P. 1 to 26 and M. Os. 1 to 6 were marked. (m) The accused were questioned u/s 313 Cr. P. C. They denied their complicity in the crime in question. On the side of defence, 6 exhibits were marked, showing that there was a clash between two groups and in that process, the accused also sustained injuries. (n) The trial Court, after having analysed the entire materials, concluded that the prosecution has established the case as against A1 to A3 and A10 and convicted them as mentioned above, and gave benefit of doubt to A4 to A9 and acquitted them. (o) Aggrieved by the Judgment of conviction, A1 to A3 and A10 have preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No. 1107 of 2002. Similarly, as indicated above, as against the acquittal in respect of A4 to A9, the State has preferred the appeal in Crl. A. No. 943 of 2005, p. W. 5, the wife of the deceased filed the Revision in Crl. R. C. No. 252 of 2003, as against the acquittal of A4 to A9.

(3.) WE have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the learned additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State in both the Appeals. We have also heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner/p. W. 5, who filed the Revision against the acquittal.