KALIMUTHU AND PALANISAMY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a common appeal by two accused The accused and the deceased are brothers, living at Rasakapalayam village within the limits of Pollachi Taluk Police Station. They divided lands belonging in common to both of them, but the apple of discord was the common well which was used for the purpose of irrigating the lands of each one of them. While so, on 15-10-1982 at about 5:00 p.m., Kulandaivelu, the deceased was brought by his wife, P.W.1 and his brother-in-law, P.W.5 to the Government Hospital, Pollachi. He was attended to by P.W.6, who saw him first sent intimation, Ex.P3 to the Town Police Station. He also sent intimation, Ex.P8, to the Magistrate, P.W.8 to record the dying declaration of Kulanthaivelu. P.W.12, the Head Constable of the Town Police Station received the intimation at about 6:00 p.m. and later came to the hospital and obtained a statement from the deceased Kulanthaivelu, Ex-P.14, at about 8:00 p.m. to the effect that he was attacked by A1 and A2. He informed the Taluk Police Station within whose limits the occurrence took place and the Head Constable of that Police Station, P.W.13, registered a case in Crime No. 171 of 1982 for an offence under Section 324, IPC. against A1 and A2.

(2.) The Investigation was taken up by P.W.14, the Sub Inspector of Police of the Taluk Police Station, who obtained in his turn a statement from Kulandaivelu on 16-10-1982 marked as Ex-P.18. Kulanthaivelu passed away on 14-10-1982 at 2:45 p.m. The Hospital authorities sent death intimation, Ex-P.20, to the Police Station and P.W.14 altered the Section of the offence into one under Section 302, IPC, Ex-P.21. Upon receipt of that express information, P.W.15, the Inspector of Police took up further investigation. The accused surrendered before the Judicial Second Class Magistrate, at Erode on 22-10 1982. The further investigation was completed by another Inspector of Police, P.W.16, who filed a report under Section 173, Crl.P.C to the effect that an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C. appeared to have been committed by both the accused. The Sessions Court framed charges accordingly. The accused pleaded not guilty. The prosecution adduced the evidence collected in the course of investigation consisting of 16 witnesses, out of whom two eye-witnesses turned hostile, 23 exhibits and 5 material objects. When the accused was examined in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution, they denied the evidence and went to the extent of saying that they were not present at that time in the village.

(3.) The trial Court after analysing the evidence and on hearing the arguments from both sides came to the conclusion that the charges were definitely proved and accordingly convicted the accused under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C and sentenced them to imprisonment for life, by judgment dated 15-3-1984 against which this appeal is directed.