ANAIYAPPAN S/O. GANAPATHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner/Accused in S.C.No.76 of 2019 was convicted by the Trial Court, by the judgment dtd. 10/7/2023, for the offence under Ss. 294(b), 307 and 506(ii) of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 294(b) of I.P.C., sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine amount of Rs.5,000.00, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment, for the offence under Sec. 307 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Sec. 506(ii) of I.P.C. The sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. Aggrieved against the said conviction, the petitioner has preferred the above appeal along with the instant miscellaneous petition seeking suspension of sentence and bail.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner and the victim/PW1 are adjacent land owners. Prior to the occurrence, there was a dispute between them with regard to a Tree. PW1 encroached upon about four feet of the petitioner 's land. In this regard, a police compliant lodged earlier. Further, when the petitioner requested PW1 to survey the land, PW1 refused and informed that he would make arrangement for the surveyor to resolve the dispute but failed to do so. PW1 admits that on the date of occurrence, petitioner was shredding the branches of Neem tree, which was on the boundary line between the petitioner 's and the victim 's land and the shredded branches were collected by the petitioner 's wife. In such circumstances, there was no necessity for the petitioner to run to his house, bring a spear and use the same to attack the victim. According to the petitioner, it was the victim/PW1, who had spear and attempted to attack the petitioner, which resulted in a scuffle between them, during which the victim sustained injuries, which is now being projected against the petitioner.

(3.) The learned counsel further submitted that in this case, the victim took treatment at three hospitals, namely, Thammampatti Government Hospital, thereafter at Attur Government Hospital and finally at Salem Government Hospital. Except for PW10, the Doctor at Attur, no other Doctors examined. The wound certificate/Ex.P10 states that the injury was grievous in nature, however, the description of the injuries not given. Further nowhere the Doctor states that the injury could lead to death. It is admitted that there was a civil dispute between the petitioner and victim and they have been fighting for years. On the spur of the moment, the attack had taken place. Further the other witnesses, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6 and PW7 are the relatives of the victim, who were residing kilometers away but they were projected as eyewitnesses and their evidence is also contradictory to each other. In any event, the conviction of the petitioner under Sec. 307 is not sustainable. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.