KUTTISAMY THEVAR AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Nine accused persons, including the appellants were tried for various offences such as rioting armed with deadly weapons, attempt to murder the prosecution witnesses, P.Ws. 1 and 2 and the causing of the death of one Duraipandi. In respect of the charges of the attempt to murder and of murder the accused other than the appellants were charged with constructive liability by reason of Sec. 149, Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge, however, found that there was no unlawful assembly, and that, except for the first three accused who are the appellants here, the charges were rot proved as against the remaining accused, and they were accordingly acquitted. The sixth charge was under Sec. 302, Indian Penal Code against the first accused. That was found established and he was convicted and he stands sentenced to the extreme penalty. In the case of the first and the second accused, the charge under Sec. 307, Indian Penal Code in so far as their attack upon P.W. 2 was concerned, was also found established. Accused 3 was also convicted under Sec. 307 for his attack upon P.W. 1. Upon their conviction, each of these accused was sentenced to five years' R.1. Accused 1 and 2 were also convicted under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 34 in respect of the fifth charge which was under Sec. 307 read with Sec. 149, Indian Penal Code. That related to the attack upon P.W. 1. They were sentenced to five years' R.1. In a similar manner, the second and the third accused were also convicted under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34, Indian Penal Code though the charge against them and the remaining acquitted accused was under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 149 and in respect of this conviction, the second and third accused were sentenced to life imprisonment. In effect, therefore, the three accused, accused 1, 2 and 3 alone were convicted, accused 1 being sentenced to death and accused 2 and 3 to imprisonment for life. The lesser sentence were directed to run concurrently with these sentences.

(2.) Most of these accused persons, the deceased and his cousins P.Ws. 1 and 2 belong to the village of Arianayagipuram and the other accused belong to the nearby villages. It is also not in dispute that accused 1 to 7 and 9 are interrelated. The precise relationship is not necessary to be set out. According to the evidence, there had been ill will between these accused and P.W. 1 Arjuna Thevar for about five years. It appears that this Arjuna Thevar was the President of the local Vivasaya Sangham and was again re -elected as President a short while before this occurrence. There had been some dispute over this Society. According to P.W. 1, the first accused demanded to be shown the accounts of the Society, but, as he was not a member P.W. 1 refused to do so. Another reason for the ill will is said to have been that P.W. 1 purchased some lands which were being cultivated by the elder brother of the fifth accused, and he got him evicted from the lands. Broadly stated, there had been quite a few criminal cases between the parties and, in particular it may be mentioned that even the police launched security proceedings both against the party of the accused and the party of the prosecution witnesses. It is unnecessary to follow those cases in any detail, but this background is sufficient to show that there was a general feeling of ill will between P.W. 1 on the ore hand and these accused on the other.

(3.) The proximate cause for the occurrence is said to have been an incident which took place about a week before the incident leading to this trial. It is said that the fifth accused had been away at Bombay for the last two or three years and had recently returned to his village. According to P.W. 1, he and the deceased Duraipandi met the fifth accused about 15 days before the, occurrence in the bazaar and made some remark about the Undesirability of his presence in the village. Accused 5 took no action just then. But a few days later, accused 1 and 2 and some of the other accused or their relations pelted stones at P.W. 1 and caused him some injuries. In regard to this incident, P.W. 1 made a complaint Exhibit P -7 on 6th November, 1965 before the Village Munsif. No action appears to have followed upon this complaint. But P.W. 1 stated that from that day onwards, the accused were trying to attack him and that he was practically confined to his house.