RAJENDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/A-1 in Sessions Case No.71 of 2005 on the file of Sessions Judge, Perambalur, was convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default to undergo two months rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the present appeal has been preferred before this Court.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution as per the charge framed by the trial Court is that on 14.4.2001 at about 4.30 p.m., at the time when the deceased Manickaraj came to the house of the brother of the appellant, which is situated next to the house of the appellant, the appellant and his wife, A-2, in view of the enmity that existed with regard to the love affair between the deceased and P.W.8, daughter of the appellant, with an intention to kill the deceased, while A-2, with a vegetable cutter, inflicted a cut on the hand, the appellant inflicted cuts on the head, neck and hand of the deceased with an aruval and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. When questioned, both the accused denied the complicity of the offence charged and therefore, the trial of the case was taken up.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the occurrence took place at 4.30 p.m. in the broad day light; P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined as eye witnesses and that about the occurrence, they have given evidence that the deceased came and was standing in front of the house of the appellant and at that time, it was the accused, who came out with weapons and questioned the deceased as to how he can come over there to see his daughter and so saying, delivered cuts on the neck of the deceased. He submits that the intimacy of the deceased with P.W.8, daughter of the accused, also has been spoken to by these witnesses; that though it is stated that the deceased came only to the residence of the brother of the appellant to collect money due to him, the fact remains that there was love affair between the deceased and P.W.8 and that the occurrence took place in consequence of a quarrel between the accused and the deceased; under such circumstances, the accused have taken the law in their own hands by taking deadly weapons and caused injuries on the deceased and therefore, the offence under Section 302 is substantiated and the appellant was rightly convicted. Insofar as the second accused is concerned, since there are some contradictions between the eye witnesses, she has been acquitted giving benefit of doubt, but insofar as the overt act attributed to the appellant is concerned, it is consistent and hence, it is not a fit case for acquittal.