JEEVA NASAMANY AND OTHERS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Among the six accused, A.1 and A.2 are the sons of A.5, A.3 is the son-in-law of A.5, A.4 is the employee of A.5 and A.6 is the wife of A.2. A.5 was running a tiffin shop next to Palaniappa theatre at M. Kallupatti and their residence also situated by the side of the shop. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 12.6.1996, at 9.00 p.m., P.W.1 came to the shop of A.5 and demanded a bunch of beedi and A.5 declined stating that unless the dues are cleared, nothing would be given, whereupon, a wordy quarrel ensued between A.5 and P.W.1, who went back and informed the same to his father, the deceased. The deceased along with P.Ws.2 and 4, came to the scene of occurrence, namely the tiffin shop, and at that time, the accused armed with knife and wooden logs assaulted the deceased and prosecution witnesses and ultimately, the deceased succumbed to the injuries.

(2.) The Trial Court framed six charges against the accused and as per the first charge, A.1, A.2, A.4 and A.5 armed with deadly weapons quarrelled with the deceased and others and thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 147 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the second charge, during the course of same transaction, all the accused indulged in rioting and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code. As per charge Nos. 3 and 4, during the course of same transaction, A.3 and A.4 wrongfully restrained the deceased and A.2 respectively and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Sec. 341 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the fifth charge, during the course of same transaction, the fourth accused hit P.W.1 on head with a wooden log and caused injury, thereby committed the offence punishable under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the sixth charge, during the course of same transaction, A.6 caught hold of P.W.2 and A.5 hit P.W.2 on his head with wooden log and caused injury, thereby, they committed an offence punishable under Sec. 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The seventh charge framed is that all the accused during the course of same transaction with an intention to kill the deceased joined together and A.3 caught hold of the deceased and the first accused stabbed the deceased indiscriminately on the back and the second accused poked on the head and consequently, the deceased succumbed to the injuries and thereby, A.1 to A.6 committed the offence punishable under Sec. 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Initially, when the accused were questioned, they denied the commission of the offence and pleaded innocence. Therefore, the trial of the case was taken up. The prosecution, during the course of trial, examined P.Ws.1 to 12, marked Exs.P.1 to P.15 and produced M.Os.1 and 2. The learned Trial Judge, after hearing both sides; convicted A.1 and A.2 under Sec. 147 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced each of them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. A.1 to A.3 were convicted under Sec. 148 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for the offence under Sec. 341 of the Indian Penal Code, A.3 was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for two weeks. A.1 to A.3 were found guilty under Sec. 302 r/w. 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 each in default to undergo imprisonment for one month. The sentences imposed were ordered to run concurrently. During the course of trial, A.5 died. The Trial Court, by holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case against A.4 and A.6, acquitted them under Sec. 235(1) of the Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved against the order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, A.1 to A.3 have preferred the present Criminal Appeal and in the meantime, A.3 died, hence the Appeal is to be decided in respect of A.1 and A.2.

(3.) The case of the prosecution, as unfurled its witnesses, is briefly narrated below: