KRISHNAMOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants A-1 to A-3 challenging the conviction under Sec.302 read with 34 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, in S.C.No.63 of 1988 on the file of First Additional Sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli have filed this appeal.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case are this: THE deceased Subban is the son of P.W.1 Rangaraj. P.W.2 Valarmathi is the daughter of the deceased. A-1 is the cousin of the deceased and A-2 and A-3 are the nephews of A-1. About two years back, A-1 gave a complaint against the deceased and P.W.3 the brother of the deceased for having beaten him with stick. In the said case, the deceased and P.W.3 were convicted About one year prior to the date of the occurrence, P.W.3 while playing cards with A-2, attacked him with a knife, for which a case was registered by the police in Crime No.148 of 1987. Though the deceased and the accused party were living in the same village, namely, Kattipalayam, P.W.1 was staying in his sister-in-law's house at Thavittupalayam. On 26.10.1987 at about 7.00 p.m. P.W.I was requested by the deceased Subban and Valarmathi, P.W.2 to come to the their house at Kattipalayam to take dinner. THErefore, all three left Thavittupalayam and were walking towards the village Kattipalayam. When they were nearing a mosque, the appellants A-1 to A-3 suddenly appeared at the scene. THE first appellant armed with aruval, the second appellant with a crow bar and A-3 with aruval started attacking the deceased. A-1 cut on the left side of the neck, A-2 stabbed on the chest with crow bar and A-3 cut on the left elbow and right shoulder of the deceased. On seeing this incident, P.W.1 Rangaraj shouted at the accused and intervened by asking them ?Why do you cut?. THEreupon, A-1 and A-2 assaulted P.W.1 also with respective weapons on his head. When PW.1 made thus and cry, the accused persons ran away from the scene, On receipt of the injury on the head, P.W.1 had giddiness went and sat near the school and was lying down. On seeing this incident, P.W.2 Valarmathi rushed to her house and informed about the incident to her uncle P.W.3 and her mother. THEreafter, P.W.3 alongwith other went to the scene, found his brother dead and his father lying near the school with injury on the head.

(3.) MR.A.Packiraraj, learned counsel appearing for the appellants took us through the entire evidence and contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 cannot be believed, in view of the vital discrepancies with reference to the core of the prosecution and as such, the appellants are not liable to be convicted, especially in the absence of any immediate motive. It is also vehemently contended by MR.Packiaraj, learned counsel for the appellants that a reading of the evidence of P.W.1 in chief and cross, would clearly show that there are two complaints recorded from P.W.1 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.9 and that only one statement has been registered and another statement has been suppressed and therefore, it is a clear case where the prosecution has concealed the important document which would highly affect the genuineness of the prosecution case, thereby the prosecution has not come with clean hands.