ARUMUGADURAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING the Judgment of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court No. II), Tuticorin dated 3/3/2005 in S. C. No. 136 of 2003, convicting the appellants / accused under Section 302 I. P. C and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a sum of Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo R. I for three months, the appellants / accused have preferred these Appeals.

(2.) THE details unfolding the matrix of the prosecution are as follows:-Deceased Ganesa Pandian was vendor of small edible items. He used to prepare such items at home on his own, carry it in a movable stall and sell the same along with his wife Muthulakshmi (P. W. 1 ). They live at Kovilpatti. Veyilumuthu, Son of Maruthaiya Thevar (P. W. 2) is the brother of P. W. 1. Another Veyilumuthu (P. W. 3) is the son of the deceased. Appellants 1 and 2 also belonged to Kovilpatti. They developed intimacy with appellants 3 and 4, who belong to Tuticorin while all of them were in jail. The motive for the occurrence is the unjust demand of edible items by appellants 2 and 3 with deceased by paying no price therefor. On the night of 04. 05. 2002, when Appellants 1 and 4 were standing aside, appellants 2 and 3 made such demand without giving price and as the deceased could not concede with their request, the appellants / accused went uttering challenging words. This incident was informed by deceased and his Son (P. W. 3) to Muthulakshmi (P. W. 1) on the night of 04. 05. 2002. They were meeting at home after the completion of their daily business. It was at mid night 12 O'clock. According to P. W. 3, the deceased went to bed after taking food approximately at 02. 00 a. m. , on 05. 05. 2002. On the early morning when the deceased, P. W. 1 and P. W. 3 went for taking water from the street pump, situate adjoining their house, all the appellants / accused armed each with Aruval way laid the deceased and mounted attack by saying as to how he could deny compliance of their command for furnishing free edible items. So saying, A-1 mounted attack upon the neck of the deceased. He also supplied attack on the back and right flank. P. W. 1 further deposed that immediately, the second accused cut with Aruval the right flank of the deceased; that A-2 furnished many cuts; that A-3 cut on the back with Aruval; that A-4 cut on the Chest and Stomach portion of the deceased with Aruval. When all appellants / accused mounted sudden attacks, P. W. 1 and P. W. 2, who came to the scene of occurrence at that moment, besides P. W. 3 were stunned and stood without any further action as they apprehended assault on them too.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY, both P. Ws. 1 and 2 came to Kovilpatti East Police Station where P. W. 1 narrated the events, which was recorded by P. W. 13 ? Sub Inspector of Police under Ex. P. 1 at about 06. 30 a. m. , on 05. 05. 2002. P. W. 13 registered a case in Kovilpatti East Police Station Crime No. 298 of 2002 for the offence under Sections 342 and 302 I. P. C. P. W. 2 also attested the said complaint.