- (1.) The facts leading to these appeals are as under: On 28th October, 2001, at 8.00 p.m. accused A.1 to A.8 armed with sickles (aruvals) and accused 9 to 15 armed with sticks went to the house of the deceased Seeniappa Nadar and inquired about PW.13 Mariappan, his son. The deceased informed the accused that Mariappan was not present in the house. Annoyed at this answer A.13 Ayyanar Nadar instigated the other accused and all of them attacked the deceased with their weapons killing him on the spot. As per the prosecution story the motive for the incident was the serious animosity between Mariappan Nadar PW.13 on the one hand, and A.13 Ayyanar Nadar accused on the other with regard to the affairs of the Nadar community inasmuch that they represented two different groups in the Committee run by the community. It also appears from the record that even prior to this incident, several incidents had taken place between the parties with complaints inter se, not only in court but even in the police station. The incident in question was witnessed by Sornammal, the wife of the deceased, her daughter P. Chellam (PW.1) who was living in a house about 100 yards away and Muthu (PW.2) the grandson of the deceased. Sornammal then rushed to the police station and lodged the report within a short time. The Investigating Officer (PW.25) also reached the place of incident, made the necessary inquiries and sent the dead boy to the hospital for the post-mortem examination. The post-mortem conducted by Dr. Ramesh (PW.17) revealed the presence of nine incised wounds on the dead body. After investigation PW.25 filed the charge-sheet against A.6, A.7, A.9, A.10 and A.11 and one Paneerselvam, was subsequently charge-sheeted as well. As the complainant was not satisfied with the investigation, she moved the Madras High Court for further investigation in the matter and the High Court by its order dated 11th December, 2001, directed that the Superintendent of Police CBCID (PW.27) to examine the proceedings himself and in case he found that the investigation made by PW.25 was faulty, to further investigate the matter as postulated by Section 173(8) of Code of Criminal Procedure It appears that further investigation was indeed made by PW.27 whereafter he filed a charge-sheet against all the 15 named persons leaving out Paneerselvam the 16th accused. The matter was thereafter brought to trial before the Sessions Judge who by his judgment and order dated 16th June, 2006, held all the accused (Save A.7 who had died) guilty as follows: JUDGEMENT_1610_TLPRE0_2009_1.html
(2.) An appeal was thereafter taken by the accused to the High Court. The High Court maintained the conviction of A.1 to A.6 and A.8 and acquitted the other accused.
(3.) Two appeals have been filed against the order of the High Court, one by the convicted accused in Crl.A. No. 584/2008 and the second Crl.A. Nos. 767-768/2008 by PW.1 the daughter of the complainant seeking a reversal of the High Court's judgment insofar as some of the accused had been acquitted and as the complainant had died before the evidence could be recorded in the trial Court. Leave has been granted in both these matters and we have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties today in extenso.;