DAKSHNAMURTHY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Criminal Appeal No. 893 of 1983 is by the adult accused and Cr1. App. No. 894 of 1983 is by his younger brothers, the two Juvenile accused and are directed against the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge, North Division at Vellore, in S.Cs. Nos. 96 and 97 of 1983. respectively, convicting the adult accused for an offence under section 304, Part I, I.P.C., and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and convicting the two juveniles for an offence under section 304, Part I, nw. 109, I.P.C., and ordering their detention for a period of two years in Senior Approved School at Chengalpattu the adult accused (hereinafter referred as the first accused) and the two juveniles (hereinafter referred to as J1 and J2) are brothers. In the above two Sessions cases they were tried for an offence under section 302, I.P.C. in that on 22/5/1983 at about 12.30 p.m. in their village Vadavirinjipuram, in furtherance of a common intention, they caused the death of one Venkatesan, the first accused stabbed him on his back with a knife while J1 and J2 caught hold of his hands. The prosecution case was that the house of Subramani, the father of Al, J1 and J2 and the house of P.W. 1 were situated near each other. There was a house in between the above two houses, regarding which P.W. 1 had entered into a sale agreement with Govindaraj, the owner of the above house, for a sum of Rs. 7,000. Subramani, who had also intended to purchase the house, was aggrieved over the sale agreement and as a result of this there had been enmity between the two families. P.W. 2 is the wife of P.W. 1. The deceased is the younger brother of P.W. 2. A day prior to the occurrence, i.e. on 21/5/1983, P.W. 1 had spread some coconut stalks in the land which he had agreed to purchase. They had gone out of the village during day and when they returned at 8 p.m. the deceased told them that Subramani had objected to the coconut stalks being spread in the land and that he had told them that after P.W. 1 returned he would pass on the information to him (P.W. 1). The next day i.e. on 22 May, 1983 at about 12-30 p.m. P.W. 1 was at home since he was not doing well. P.W. 2 also was at home. The first accused had come there and had asked P.Ws. 1 and 2 to remove the coconut stalks. P.W. 1 had stated that since he was not doing well that day he would remove them the next day the first accused, however, persisted that the coconut stalks must be removed immediately. Thereupon, P.W. 2 intervened and stated that because P.W. 1 was not doing well they had undertaken to remove the stalks the next day. The first accused thereupon-abused P.W. 2 in a filthy language for having come to the rescue of P.W. 1. The deceased, who came to the scene just then and finding that his sister, P.W. 2 was being abused in a vulgar language, found fault with the first accused as to why he was using a language which even the husband of P.W. 2 would not use. Thereupon, Jl and J2 lifted the deceased and when the deceased tried to wriggle out, they caught bold of his two hands and suddenly the first accused with his pen knife, M.O.1, stabbed the deceased on the back four or five times. When alarm was raised the three accused ran away. P.W. 5 saw the three persons running away from the scene. Though some first aid was sought to be given to the deceased within about half an hour he died. P.W. 1 thereafter went to the police station and at 3 p.m. gave Ex. PT to P.W 10, who registered the same as Crime No. 102/83 for an offence under section 302, IPC. Investigation was taken up, observation mahazar, Ex. P11 was prepared blood-stained earth from the scene of occurrence was recovered and inquest was held between 11 p.m. and 1 a.m., that night, the inquest report being Ex. P/4. The dead body was sent through P.W. 8 a constable, to P.W. 7 the Medical Officer, who conducted autopsy on the dead body on 23rd May, 1983 at 12.35 p.m., and found on the dead body the following injuries: 1. Incised wound 5 x 2 cms. on the back over paraspinal area of D-7 on left side. 2. Incised wound 3 x 2 x 2 cms. over paraspinal area of D-9 left side. 3. Incised wound 5 x 2 x 3 cms. over paraspinal area of L2. 4. Incised wound 5 x 2 x 9 cms. over paraspinal area of D.7 right side. Frothy blood extruding through the wound. 5. Incised wound 7 x 2 x 2 cms. Over paraspinal area of D.9 right side. Ex. P5 was the postmortem certificate. According to P.W. 7, the deceased would appear to have died of injury to vital organ, viz, right lung. J2 was arrested on 25th May, 1983 and on his information M.O. 1 knife was recovered. The first accused surrendered at the police station. After completing investigation two separate charge-sheets were laid, one against the first accused and the other against J1 and J2.

(2.) During trial in both the cases, P.Ws. 1 to 11 were examined and Exs. P1 to P14 were marked. M.Os. 1 to 10 were also produced. In the case against J1 and J2, C.W. 1 the Radiologist, was examined and Exts Cl and C2 were marked to show that J1 was aged 17 years and 12 was aged 14 years.

(3.) When questioned under section 313, Cri P.C. the accused denied their complicity in the crime. They did not examine any witness on their side.