ETHIRAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Ethiraj is the sole accused tried in S.C. No. 395 of 2010 for the charge under Sec. 307 of I.P.C. The victim of the crime is none other than the own brother of the accused. According to the charge, on 10/5/2009, at about 9.30 a.m, on the Tindivanam to Marakkanam road near Anna Nagar junction, 1st cross street, the accused attacked his brother Sridhar with vegetable chopping knife on his left hand, head and stomach with an intention to cause death.

(2.) The trial Court, considering the evidence has held the accused found to be guilty for offence under Sec. 307 of I.P.C. sentenced him to undergo 4 years R.I and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000.00 in default one month imprisonment.

(3.) Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence the accused has preferred the appeal. It is contended by the appellant/accused that the trial Court has failed to see the motive behind the complainant to implicate the appellant. To deprive the right of the appellant in the property, the complainant has implicated his brother in this case. PW.1 Amudha Rani admits the property dispute between the accused and the victim. She admits the victim used abusive words and tried to assault the accused during the Panchayat. There is a possibility of false implication of the accused, in order to prevent the accused from claiming share in the property. The accused has probabilised the said probability, so the benefit of doubt ought to have been given to the accused. Except the evidence of the injured witness (PW.2) there is no independent witness to corroborate his evidence. When the previous enmity is admitted, possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out. Therefore, based on the un-corroborated evidence of the interested witnesses, the learned trial Judge had erroneously convicted the accused.