THIRUMAL THEVAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FOR having caused the murder of one Alagiriswami and causing injuries to P. Ws. 2, 3 and 4 the three appellants before us have been convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC, and sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge of Madurai Division in Sessions Case No. 77 of 1956. There were four charges for which the three appellants were tried. The first charge was against appellants 1 to 3 for the murder of Alagirisami punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC The second and third charges were against the first appellant for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a deadly weapon to P. W. 3 punishable under Section 326, IPC and also causing hurt to P. W. 4 punishable under Section 324, IPC The sentences against appellant 1 for these two offences were three years rigorous imprisonment under B. 326, I, P. C, and one year rigorous imprisonment under Section 324, I. P. C. The fourth charge was against the 3rd appellant, for voluntarily causing hurt with a deadly weapon to P. W. 2, The offence was punishable under Section 324, I P. C, and the sentence imposed was one year rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE occurrence is said to have taken place on 30th March 1956 in the village of Arasapatti in the morning at about 7-30. The scene of offence is just opposite the house of P. W. 1. The prosecution story is that there was family quarrel between the appellants and the family of P. W. 3 and the feelings were bitter as confessed to by P. W. 1 herself. The appellants as well as P. Ws. 1 to 4 are all related. The second and third appellants are brothers of the husband of P. W. 1. The first appellant aged about 18 to 20 is the cousin's son of P. W. 1. The deceased was the younger brother of P. W. 1. P. W. 3 is the father of the deceased. P W. 2 is the mother of the deceased and also P. ' W. 1- P- W. 4 is another brother of the deceased. The first appellant is said to have used a overstock when he stabbed the deceased. The third appellant is said to have been armed with a spade. The second appellant Is also said to have been armed with a spear.

(3.) ON 30-3-1956 at about 7-30 a. m. when P. W. 1 sent for her younger brother the deceased and directed him to water the bulls which belonged to her and which were tied in the kitten opposite the house, the third appellant is said to have first attacked the deceased when he was in a bent position on the nape of the neck with a spade and caused an injury which is said to be simple according to the doctor, who gave the post-mortem certificate. Alarm was then raised by P. W. 1. who was an eye-witness to the occurrence. Then the first appellant is stated to have come when the deceased had fallen down having received the injury from the third appellant and the first appellant is said to have caused a spear injury on the chest of the deceased. This injury is opined by the doctor to have proved to be a fatal one. The further prosecution story is that the 2nd appellant then came to the scene from another side and when the deceased turned having already fallen down ho caused an injury on the left flank with a spear. This injury is also stated by the doctor P. W. 5 to be a grievous injury. No doubt P. W. 11 would have it that this injury was caused by the 2nd appellant when the deceased was just moving in a staggering fashion after he received the injury from the first, appellant. We shall advert to the evidence of P. W. 11 at a later stage. The evidence is that all these injuries were caused to the deceased when he was just outside the house of P. W. 1 near a tub when he was watering the cattle among which was included a goring bull. Reference to this goring bull seems to be necessary in view of the fact that the case of the appellants was that it was the goring bull that caused the injuries to the deceased as a result of which he died and not that they used any weapon which caused the injuries which ultimately resulted in his death.