DHANDAPANI Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above criminal appeal is filed by the appellants/accused who are arrayed as A-1 and A-2, challenging the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence imposed on them by the learned VII Additional Sessions Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai dated 05.02.2004 in SC.NO.145/2002. The appellants/accused stood charged and tried for the offences under sections 452 and 307 read with 34 IPC and the Trial Court, vide impugned judgment, had convicted them for the offences under sections 452 and 326 read with 34 IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo 5 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment for each of the offences u/s.452 and 326 read with 34 IPC. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently. The period of incarceration already undergone by them, was also given set off under section 428 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that A-1 is the brother-in-law of P.W.1-Pandiyan and A-2 is the friend of A-1 and that after the demise of the wife of P.W.1/sister of A-1, P.W.1 made arrangements to get married for the second time within one year of the death of his wife and enraged by the said decision of P.W.1, A-1 developed enmity and on 18.06.2001 at about 8.30 a.m., with a common intention to do away with the life of P.W.1, both the accused had trespassed into the house of P.W.1 armed with knives and in continuation of the said intention, A-1 had stabbed on the stomach of P.W.1 and A-1 stabbed on the face of P.W.1 and caused grievous injuries. After completion of the investigation, the Final Report had been laid by the Investigating Office against the appellants/accused for the offences under sections 452 and 307 read with 34 IPC.

(3.) The case was taken on file in CC.No.913/2001 on the file of the learned 16th Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai and necessary charges were framed. The accused had denied the charge and sought for trial. In order to bring home the charge against the accused, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses as PW.1 and PW.10 and marked Exs.P.1 to P.11 and M.Os.1 to 4. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313[1][b] Cr.P.C as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and the accused had come with the version of total denial and stated that they have been falsely implicated in this case. On behalf of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was let in.