PERUMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who was accused in S.C. No. 133/87 on the file of the learned Sessions Judge Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, and convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, has challenged the said conviction and sentence in this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The deceased was one Murga Gounder and he was the father of the appellant. There was some misunderstanding between the deceased and the appellant with regard to leasing of the land, which has been allotted to the appellant in the partition. The appellant wanted to lease out the said land to PW 5 which was not liked by the deceased and the deceased prevented the appellant from leasing the land to PW5. According to the prosecution, this was the motive for committing the murder of the deceased by the appellant.

(3.) On 28-4-1987 when the deceased was coming after attending the festival, he was attacked by the appellant with Aruval, M.O.1, near the land of PW 3. After the incident, the prosecution case was that accused went to PW1, who is a Village Administrative Officer of a nearby village and gave a statement which was recorded by PW 1 as per Ex. P1. PW 1 prepared copies of the said statement and obtained signature of the accused and went to the spot where the body was lying and prepared his report as per Ex. P3 and P4. He sent Ex. PT and P3 to Mothur Police Station and Ex. P2 and P4 to the judicial Magistrate, Uthangarai, through a menial. PW7 who is a Grade I Police COnstable of Mathur Police Station received Ex. PT and P3 and registered a case in Crime No. 931 87 at 11.30 a.m. for an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. He sent Ex. PT and P3 along with First Information Report to the Court as well as to his superiors. PW 10, (he Inspector of Police, after receipt of the said First Information Report, came to the Police station and took the Sub-Inspector of Police and other Constables, to the spot at about 12 noon. The accused was detained by PW1 and PW10 arrested the accused from the custody of PW1 and obtained a statement in the presence of PW 1, the admissible portion which is marked as Ex. PS. M.O.1 Billhook, was recovered from the house of the accused under Ex. P6 in the presence of PW1. PW1O prepared Observation Mahazar as per Ex. P7 and prepared a rough sketch as per Ex. P18. He conducted inquest over the dead body as per Ex. P19 between 3.20 and 6 p.m. During the course of inquest, he recorded the statements of PW5 1, 3 and 5. He arranged to take the photographs through PW 6. He sent the dead body for post-mortem examination through a Police Constable, PW 8. He collected the sample of blood stained earth. M.O. 5 and sample earth, M.O. 6 and M.O. 8 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, near the house of the deceased, under Ex. P8 and it was attested by PW1.