CHAKKARAI Vs. R SELVAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are Accused 1 to 9. A1 has been convicted for the offence under Sections 148 and 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo one year RI for the offence under Section 148 I. P. C. and life imprisonment for the offence under Sections 302 and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default to undergo six months SI; and A2 to A9 have been convicted for the offence under sections 147 and 302 read with 114 and 149 IPC and each sentenced to undergo six months SI for the offence under Section 147 IPC and to pay a fine of rs. 500/-, in default to undergo SI for one month and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 read with 114 and 149 IPC and A2 to A7 alone have been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo SI for three months and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the same, A4 has filed Crl. Appeal No. 719/2003, A2, A3 and A5 to A9 have filed Crl. Appeal No. 940/2003 and A1 has filed Crl. Appeal No. 962 of 2003.

(2.) THE facts leading to the conviction are as follows:- a) THE deceased Rangaswamy had two wives. THE first wife is Rajamani/a7. THE second wife is P. W. 1 Malar. Both wives lived separately in the adjacent portion of the house. A2 Selvakumar, son of the deceased born through the first wife was working in military. He came to the village on obtaining leave from military during the relevant time. THE deceased was a drunkard. So, he went on selling his properties to others. On coming to know that the deceased planned to sell some more properties, A7 Rajamani got afraid that her husband would sell away all the properties leaving anything to her and her son. THErefore, A7 Rajamani hatched conspiracy with A2 and also took help from seven other persons, viz. , the other accused to kill the deceased so that the remaining properties would be safeguarded. b) THE fateful occurrence took place on 16. 6. 1999. On the said night, the deceased was sleeping in front of the house in a cot. P. W. 1 the second wife of the deceased and son P. W. 4 Ramesh were taking bed inside the house. At that point of time, all the accused came to the house of the deceased. A8 and A9 were standing near to the place keeping vigil over the other persons in order to see any other person coming to the place of occurrence. A4 and A7 caught hold of the head of the deceased, A5 and A6 caught hold of the legs, A2 and A3 caught hold of the body and A1 with knife (M. O. 1)gave a cut on the neck and caused serious injury. THE deceased died at the spot. On hearing the sound both P. W. 1, the second wife of the deceased and p. W. 4 son came out and saw the deceased was being cut by A1, while the other accused persons caught hold of the body of the deceased. She raised a alarm. c) On hearing the alarm, P. W. 2 Pichapillai and P. W. 3 natarajan came and saw this occurrence. On seeing the witnesses, the accused ran away from the place of occurrence. P. W. 1 went and informed the same to the VAO at about 6. 30 a. m. THE same was reduced into writing. Ex. P. 1 is the complaint and Ex. P. 5 is the report of the VAO. Both the documents were handed over to p. W. 8 Head Constable at 8. 30 a. m. through the Thalayari P. W. 6. A case was registered for the offences under Sections 147,148,302 read with 34 I. P. C. in crime No. 145/1999 on the file of Irumbulikurichi Police Station. d) P. W. 9, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the message, went to the scene of occurrence at 10. 30 a. m. He drew the rough sketch (Ex. P. 11) and prepared observation mahazar (Ex. P. 2 ). He recovered bloodstained earth and sample earth. He conducted inquest at 11. 00 a. m. Ex. P. 12 is the inquest report. He recovered the mat M. O. 4 and bloodstained pillows M. Os. 5 and 6. He sent the body for postmortem examination. e) P. W. 7, the Doctor conducted postmortem examination on 17. 6. 1999. Ex. P. 9 is the postmortem certificate. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital structure due to neck injury. f) THEn, P. W. 9 arrested A4, A5 to A9 on 18. 6. 1999. He arrested A2 on 22. 6. 1999 and on his confession, he recovered M. O. 1. He came to know about the surrender of A1 before the Court. His successor P. W. 10, the inspector of Police, took up further investigation. He examined the other witnesses and sent all the material objects for chemical examination. After completing the investigation, he laid the charge sheet against all the accused on 29. 5. 2000 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 34 I. P. C. g) During the course of trial, the prosecution examined p. Ws. 1 to 10, filed Exhibits P. 1 to P. 13 and marked M. Os. 1 to 10 before the trial Court. h) When the accused were questioned under Section 313 cr. P. C. with reference to the incriminating materials, they denied their complicity in the crime. On the side of defence, D. Ws. 1 to 3 were examined. i) THE trial Court, having regard to the circumstances available on record, concluded that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above. This is the subject matter of challenge in these appeals before this court filed by the appellants.

(3.) SINCE it is reported that A9 died during the pendency of the appeal, it is necessary to record his death and accordingly, the same is recorded and the appeal as regards A9 is abated.