PUSHPARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Krishnagiri made in S.C.No,77 of 2005 whereby the appellant/accused stood charged, tried and found guilty under section 302 r/w 114 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal could be stated as follows:

(3.) THE specific charge that was levelled against the appellant herein was that he facilitated the crime when the deceased accused one Ashokkumar attached the deceased Perumal at 5.30 p.m. On 4.5.2003. P.W.1 is the wife and P.Ws. 2 to 4 are the daughters of the deceased. THEy were examined to speak about the occurrence. It is the specific case of the prosecution that when the deceased accused cut Perumal with koduval it was this appellant/accused who caught hold of the deceased Perumal to facilitate the crime. So far this relevant fact is concerned, the prosecution must prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. THE Court is afraid to convict the present accused/appellant on accepting this part of the case of the prosecution that the appellant/accused caught hold of the deceased and thereby facilitated the crime of murder when the deceased accused cut him with koduval, on the face of evidence of P.W.1 and coupled with the medical opinion canvassed. According to P.W.1, he had candidly admitted that the appellant here was catching hold of the deceased by standing behind the deceased when the deceased accused attacked the deceased Perumal with koduval on the neck. THE first external injury that was found on the deceased was actually described in the post mortem certificate Ex.P.5 as follows. "Deep lacerated cut injury about 28 cm. X 5 cm. X 4 cm. - 7 cm. Extending 2 cm. lateral to mouth angle over the right cheek, over the right lateral neck, nape of neck to the left side neck. Cutting underlying muscle, ligament. Neurovascular bundle with jugular vein, Carotid vessels bone, C4 vertebra." From the very reading of the above injury in the post mortem certificate, it would be quite clear that the injury what was found from the cheek also extends to the backside of the neck to the nape bone. Under such circumstances, when such injury is found to be at the back, a person standing in front cannot cause such an injury which was extending to the nape side of the head when the other person is standing behind catching hold of the deceased. THE appellant did not sustained any injury at all.