KRISHNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (A-1) was charged for the offence under Sections 341 & 302 IPC and the other accused (A-2) was charged for the offence under Sections 341, 302 read with Section 34 IPC in S.C.No.300 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.2), Thoothukudi. After trial, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the appellant (A-1) alone for the offence under Sections 341 & 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC and also to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment, but acquitted the other accused (A-2) of all the charges. Challenging the conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred this appeal. For convenience, the appellant will be hereinafter referred to as "the accused" in this order.

(2.) FOLLOWING are the few facts giving rise to the implication of the accused for the above offence:- The deceased-Sundaram and his wife-Valli, P.W.1, were residing in a garden land belonging to one Komu Ammal. The said Komu Ammal erected a fence and also planted five tamarind trees in the said garden. The accusedhad quarrelled with the deceased Sundaram as to the fencing of the garden, as it had prevented him from using the land as a pathway. When the deceased replied that he has not fenced the land and it was only the owner of the land Komu Ammal who had fenced the land. Just six months prior to the date of occurrence, the accused again threatened the deceased that he will cut him, as he has fenced the land and prevented his entry through the land belonging to Komu Ammal. Hence he developed enmity with the deceased. It appears that on the date of occurrence ie., on 1.5.2004 at about 19.00 hours, when the deceased and P.W.1 were carrying dinner to their daughter's house, the accused along with one Shanmugam (A-2) came in the opposite direction. The street light was burning. When the deceased and P.W.1 were near Devar's house, while A-2 Shanmugam caught hold of the deceased, the accused, by taking an aruval which was hidden on the back, cut the deceased on his left palm and left neck. He also caused indiscriminate cut injuries on the face and other parts of the body of the deceased with the aruva. The accused and Shanmugam ran away from the scene after leaving the aruval in that place. The deceased fell down.

(3.) P.W.8, Civil Surgeon, on receipt of the requisition and the body, commenced post-mortem on the body of the deceased at 12.15 p.m. on 2.5.2004 and found the following external injuries:-