DASARATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Chidambaram, Cuddalore District in S.C.No.341 of 2004 dated 11.08.2005 against A.1 and A.2 sentencing A.1 to undergo life imprisonment for offence under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C., and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo 6 months simple imprisonment; and A.2 guilty of offence under Section 302 I.P.C., and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo for 6 months simple imprisonment.

(2.) A.1 is the father of A.2 and father-in-law of the deceased Mahalingam. A.5 Jyothi is the wife of the deceased. A.6 Kannan is the paramour of A.5. There was a dispute between the deceased and his wife regarding the illicit relationship of A.5 with A.6. There was also a dispute between the deceased and A.2 regarding the money transaction of Rs.80,000/- given by the deceased to A.2 to purchase a land. It is the case of the prosecution that on 27.08.1999, all the accused had hatched a conspiracy to kill Mahalingam. On this back ground, on 29.08.1999, at about 10.00 p.m., the deceased was sleeping in a cot in A.1's house, all the accused gathered with deadly weapons. A.2 and A.3 with a common intention to kill the deceased stood in front of A.1's house, A.4 and absconding accused Fakrudin Ali Ahamed stood near the cot where the deceased was sleeping in order to prevent him from moving and A.2 and A.3 cut the deceased on his face, hands, legs and at his back with Aruval and on sustaining several cut injuries, the deceased Mahalingam died at Government Hospital at Chennai on 01.09.1999. In continuation of the said incident, A.1 & A.4 had also participated in the offence as the members of unlawful assembly and had helped A.1 and A.3 in committing the murder of Mahalingam and therefore, all the accused are liable to be punished under Section 120 (B), 147, 148 and 302 r/1 149 I.P.C.

(3.) THE learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr.V.R.Balasubramanian would contend that despite the witnesses of the prosecution turning hostile, the dying declarations given by the deceased Mahalingam in the form of complaint-Ex.P.13 and before the Judicial Magistrate as Ex.P.15 have no material contradictions and the cause of death of Mahalingam was also mentioned in Ex.P.1 that A.1 was speaking outside the room with the persons who were brought for attacking the deceased and therefore, the dying declarations-Ex.P.13 and P.15 would implicate all the accused and since both the dying declarations are not inconsistent with each other, the trial Court is also quite correct in coming to the conclusion of convicting A.1 and A.2. He has prayed for dismissal of the appeal confirming the judgment of conviction and sentence passed against A.1 and A.2 by the trial Court.