MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram in S.C.No,253/2007 against the appellants/accused 3 and 4.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief would be as follows:- (a) THE appellants are the accused A3 and A4. THE father of the accused A1 and A2 and deceased Chinnathambi are brothers they have common property, like houses vacant sites, lands, coconut trees, tamarind trees, mango trees without any division. THEre was a dispute in dividing the property and upon the said dispute enmity developed and was prevailing in between them. Since the deceased Chinnathambi had plucked coconuts from the coconut trees for the Mariamman Kovil temple festival, the accused 1 to 4 on 15.06.2007, at about 05.00 p.m, destroyed the bunch of coconut flowers and the buds of tender coconuts and when the deceased Chinnathambi and witnesses Gopal, Kamalam, Chitra questioned the accused 1 to 4, the 1st accused had shouted at Chinnathambi that he was responsible and therefore he should be finished and by saying so attacked him with Koduva knife on the back of his head. A2 had also shouted against him and had attacked with Koduva knife on the left side of his head and when P.W.1 attempted to prevent him, A2 had with the Koduva knife, attacked on his left leg. When P.W.2 Kamalam was about to prevent the said incident, A3 with Koduva knife cut on her head and A4 had attacked on her right shoulder. Similarly when P.W.3 Chitra attempted to prevent the accused A4 beat her with wooden log on her front side of the head and on her left hand wrist thereby the accused A3 and A4 had common intention to help A1 and A2 to commit the murder of Chinnthambi. (b) THE Investigating Officer had proceeded on the case registered u/s. 294 (b) 323, 324, 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C against the accused and had filed the charge sheet before the Judicial Magistrate II Villupuram and the case was taken on file in P.R.C.No,48/2007 and was committed to Principal Sessions court and was taken on file on S.C.No,253/2007. THE trial court had framed necessary charges and had proceeded against all the accused by examining 15 witnesses, 31 documents and 9 material objects on the side of the prosecution.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants/A3 and A4, Mr.Sankarasubbu would submit in his argument that the lower court had miserably failed in fastening the appellants also in the commission of crime in which the deceased Chinnathambi was murdered. He would further submit that the evidence of P.W.1 as relied by the lower court are contrary to the cross examination. He would also submit that the P.Ws.1 to 4 are interested witnesses since they are close relatives of the deceased person and therefore their evidence have to be discarded as they did not speak the truth.