KARUPPUSAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2006-9-7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 29,2006

KARUPPUSAMY Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MUKESHBHAI GINUBHAI NINAMA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-235] [REFERRED TO]
MURARI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-2012-2-211] [REFERRED TO]
MANGESH VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(SC)-2011-1-15] [REFERRED TO]
GUDU RAM VS. STATE OF H.P. [LAWS(HPH)-2007-10-59] [REFERRED TO]
BHABEN GOGOI VS. STATE OF ASSAM [LAWS(GAU)-2012-3-139] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

S.B. Sinha, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)Appellants herein were accused Nos.2 and 3 before the learned Trial Judge. They, along with accused No. 3, as also the wife of Appellant No. 2 (accused No. 4) were tried jointly for alleged commission of murder of one Shanmugam under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof. Accused No. 1 was acquitted of the said charge. Accused No. 4 has been convicted only under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. Thus, only Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are before us.
(3.)The incident took place on 5.7.1994 at about 6.00 p.m. The parties were members of a joint family. A partition took place as regards their residential house. P.W. 1-Chinnasamy was given a share of the building on the southern side, whereas accused No. 2, Appellant No. 1 herein, was allotted share on the northern side. Appellant No. 2 was allotted a portion on the eastern side of the house. Allegedly, the portion allotted to P.W. 1 was larger in area compared to the portion given to Appellants. Accused No. 1 was allotted another ancestral house and some lands towards his share. The house allotted to Accused No. 1 was also adjacent to the property allotted to P.W.1 and Appellant herein. P.W.1 is said to have given a sum of Rs. 10,000/- to his father as the portion of the house allotted to him was larger in size. Allegedly, despite registration of a Deed of Partition, P.W.1 was not allowed to enjoy the portion of the property allotted to him. Appellants are said to have erected a wall and, thus, effectively prevented him from entering into the house through the main door. P.W.1 fixed a new door and also inducted tenant(s). Tenants were allegedly forced to vacate the house and had been threatened by the accused persons, in respect whereof a complaint was made. All the accused pursuant thereto were summoned by the police and were warned. P.W.2 and the deceased Shanmugam were on visiting terms with P.W.1. They, allegedly, were once assaulted by the accused.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.