Deepak Gupta, J. - (1.) This appeal filed by the accused-appellant is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 19.12.2008, whereby conviction of the appellant no.1 (A1) under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) has been upheld. Since appellant No.2 (A2-Rajendran) has died during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal shall stand abated in so far as appellant no.2 is concerned.
(2.) The facts of the case are that Chinnappa Gounder (deceased) was the neighbour of the first accused. They both had adjacent landed properties and shared a common boundary. There was a common well on this boundary which was also divided between the appellant no.1 and the deceased. A dividing wall was there in the well.
(3.) The appellant had initiated some civil proceedings and appear to have obtained an order permitting accused no.1 to repair the well. On 17.07.2000, Karuppanna Gounder, his son-in-law Rajendran, his wife Thangaiyee, his son Mayakrishnan, and some others were removing sand from their portion of the well when PW-6, son of the deceased Chinnappa Gounder objected to this action since they were dropping the sand on the passage used by the deceased and his family.;