MOHAN DOSS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANTS-1 and 2 are father and son respectively and the third appellant is the wife of the first appellant. The gist of the charge is that, on 03.12.2003 at about 3 P.M., appellants-1 and 2/A1 & A2 armed with aruval and the 3rd appellant/A3 with iron rod, on account of their enmity against one Subburathinam, who won the case against them in respect of 40 cents of land, with the common intention to murder the said Subburathinam, waylaid him and his son Sundarapandian while they were coming alongside the thrashing field and by saying 'how dare you bring the Tractor to plough the field; because of you, we are walking between police station and court and only if you are finished off, we would feel relieved', A2 cut the deceased with aruval on right and left wrist and attacked Sundarapandian on the right side of the back and shoulder; A1 attacked the deceased twice on the head and the third accused beat Sundarapandian with iron-rod on the neck and right elbow. The trial court framed the charge against A-1 for the offences under Sections 307 and 302 read with 34 IPC. and against A2 and A-3 under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC. By order dated 30.07.2007, passed in Sessions Case No.27 of 2006, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC No.4, Periakulam, held against the accused and the details of conviction and sentence are given below:- The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. As against the said order of conviction and sentence passed by the court below, the accused have come up with the present Appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined PWs-1 to 22, marked Exs.P1 to P48 and produced MOs-1 to 8. On the side of the defence, 14 documents were filed as Exs.D1 to D14 however no oral evidence was let in.

(3.) CONTUSION 8 cm x 2 cm with deformity noted on the middle of back of left forearm. On dissection, the underlying both bones found fractured in its surrounding bruising is noted. "