YASEEN ALIAS YASEEN IQBAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this appeal stands convicted in S.C.No.13/2004 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Ooty, for which, he stands sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, together with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, carrying a default sentence. Hence he is before this court in this appeal. Head Mr. A. Ganesh learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. N.R. Elango learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for theState.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that, annoyed over the fact that on account of the shout given by the deceased, the squirrel, which the accused wanted to shoot, ran away, the accused shot the deceased by name Thilagarathinam at about 1.30 p.m on 12.09.2002 with an air gun resulting in his death and therefore punishable for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. THE prosecution examined P.Ws 1 to 10, besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.19 and M.Os. 1 to 7.

(3.) IN the light of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, we perused the entire materials available on record. The fact remains established that a young boy by name Thilagarathinam died due to bullet injury. The defence is not disputing that fact. Evidence on record shows that the accused was so affectionate not only to P.W.2 but also to his elder brother, who is the deceased. P.W.2s evidence is that, at the occurrence time, he was studying in 4th standard and his elder brother was studying in 5th standard. Therefore, the deceased must be of a tender age on the date of occurrence. Doctors evidence shows that he was 12 years on the day when he was shot dead. The occurrence was in the year 2002. Therefore he would have been around 10 years of age on the date of occurrence. As rightly contended by the learned counsel on either side, the entire prosecution case rests only on the oral evidence of P.W.2. We are fully satisfied, on going through his evidence, that he is competent to speak about the crime. But none-the-less, this court cannot lose sight of any material that are available in his evidence in cross, which may be taken into account in favour of the accused. Though this witness in his evidence in chief would state that annoyed over the fact that due to the sound given by his elder brother the squirrel escaped from being shot by the accused and therefore the accused fired at his elder brothers forehead resulting in his death, yet, from his evidence in cross, we find several materials which may dilute the crime. But before proceeding to examine the evidence in cross of this witness, we hold that we are fully satisfied that the evidence in this case establishes that P.W.2s elder brother died as a result of bullet injury, which injury was caused by the pellet coming out of the air gun in the hands of the accused. IN other words, the involvement of the accused in firing his air gun resulting in the injury as referred to above on the forehead of the victim stands established.