KAILASAM Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants/accused Nos.3 & 1 have filed these Criminal Appeals, challenging the judgment, dated 21.02.2018, in S.C.No.57 of 2015 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai in and by which, A1 was convicted under Sections 120(b) r/w 302 and 114 r/w 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each offence, in default, 3 months simple imprisonment and A3 was convicted under Sections 120(b) r/w 302 and 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- for each offence, in default, 3 months simple imprisonment and A3 was convicted under Section 449 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 10 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, 3 months simple imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case is that the deceased had worked abroad and earned well and then returned to his native place. Frequent quarrel arose between the deceased and his wife/A1 since A1 was given to lavish spending. Further, deceased suspect illegal intimacy with A1 and A3. P.W.1 is brother of the deceased. According to P.W.1, on 17.12014, when he contacted the deceased, he informed him that he would return with his son the next day morning. However, repeated calls over phone on the morning of 18.12014 went unanswered. Hence, he along with P.W.5 went to the house of the deceased, where he was found lying dead in his bed room. The deceased dwelling was on the first floor of the building. P.W.1 had proceeded to the police station and preferred Ex.P.1 complaint, which was registered in Crime No.395 of 2014 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. The deceased had suffered fracture to the head and fracture of the 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs leading to puncturing of the lungs. The prosecution had have it that the third accused had pushed the deceased and stamped his chest leading to fracture of ribs, while the 4th accused hit his head on the writing table. On such premise, the case in Crime No.395 of 2014 was altered on 19.12014 to reflect 120(b) and 302 I.P.C. After enquiry, it was then altered to Sections 120(b), 449, 109, 114 and 302 I.P.C. Upon completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed informing commission of offences under Section 120(b) r/w 302 against A1 and A2, under Sections 120(b), 449 and 302 I.P.C. against A3 and A4 and under Sections 120(b) r/w 449, 302 r/w 114 and 109 I.P.C. against A5 and A6. On committal, the case was tried in S.C.No.57 of 2015 on the file of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Pudukkottai. Before trial Court, prosecution examined 35 witnesses and marked 36 exhibits and 15 material objects. None were examined on behalf of defence nor were any exhibits marked.

(3.) When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. on the incriminating materials against them, they denied their complicity in the crime and stated that they had been falsely implicated in the case.