- (1.) A1, who stands convicted for the offence punishable under section 302 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment in S.C.No.4/1997, is the appellant in this appeal. There were two more accused arrayed as A2 and A3 tried in the very same sessions case for the offence punishable under section 307 I.P.C. However they were found guilty only for the offence punishable under section 324 I.P.C., for which offence each one of them stands sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- carrying a default sentence. It is brought to our notice that A2 and A3 have paid the fine amount and they have not filed any appeal. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
(2.) The case of the prosecution in short is as follows: "The deceased in this case is the cousin of P.W.1. P.W.2 is also the cousin of Soundarapandian/since deceased in this case. The family of P.W.1 appears to be closely affiliated to a political party, which we will refer as "A" party. According to the prosecution case, the accused belong to another political party, which we will refer as "B" party. On 03.06.1996, to celebrate the birthday of the leader of "A" party, the prosecution witnesses were planting saplings. Large scale cooking was also done and sweets were distributed to the villagers. All the three accused objected to such celebration and protested that on account of the activities of the prosecution witnesses alone, "A" party is gaining prominence. Soundarapandian/since deceased replied to the accused that when their party was in power, they were also celebrating such occasions and on those occasions, the prosecution witnesses kept quiet. The accused attempted to assault the witnesses at that time and local villagers separated them. On 27.06.1996 around 10.30 p.m., P.Ws.1, 2 and Soundarapandian were conversing among themselves opposite to the house of P.W.2's father by name Thangaraj. They were sitting in the verandah of that house and talking. Lights were burning inside and outside the house. All the three accused came there armed. A2 and A3 were each armed with a stick while A1 was armed with an aruval. Proclaiming that the prosecution witnesses are the big wigs and only on killing them the accused would live in peace, A2 with a stick attacked on the head of P.W.1 saying that he must die with that. A3 likewise attacked on the head of P.W.2 with a stick. Both P.Ws.1 and 2 started bleeding. Soundarapandian/since deceased stepped in asking as to why they are assaulting P.Ws.1 and 2. A1 at that stage stating that it is Soundarapandian, who ought to have been killed first, gave a blow on the head of Soundarapandian with an aruval. Soundarapandian fell down in a pool of blood. On seeing this, P.Ws.1's father, P.W.3 and others came running. But the accused left the scene of occurrence. P.Ws.1, 2 and Soundarapandian reached the Government hospital at Sivakasi and around 11.45 p.m on that night, Soundarapandian breathed his last, despite treatment. The evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 on the sum and substance of the occurrence is on the lines stated above. P.W.9 reached the hospital and by examining P.W.1, recorded a statement from him. Ex.P.1 is that complaint. M.O.1 is the blood stained banian given by P.W.1 to P.W.9. M.O.2 is the weapon of offence in the hands of A1.
(3.) P.W.9 is the Sub-Inspector of Police in the Investigating Police Station. He would state that on receipt of the information at 1.00 a.m on 28.06.1996 he reached the Government hospital at Sivakasi and recorded Ex.P.1 from P.W.1. He also recovered M.O.1 from P.W.1. He came back to the police station and registered Ex.P.1 in Crime No.65/1996 for offences punishable under sections 307 and 302 I.P.C. Ex.P.17 is the printed first information report. He sent the material records to the court as well as to the higher officials. P.W.10 is the Investigating Officer. He would state that at 3.00 a.m on 28.06.1996 he received information over telephone about the crime; reached the police station at Pudupatti; collected the material records; then proceeded to the scene at 4.30 a.m and prepared Ex.P.2/observation mahazar and Ex.P.18/rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. At 6.30 a.m he went to the mortuary in the Government hospital at Sivakasi and conducted inquest over the dead body. Ex.P.19 is the inquest report. During inquest he examined P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and others and recorded their statements. After inquest he routed a requisition through a police constable to the Gvoernment hospital for conducting post mortem. P.W.6 is the Doctor, who did post mortem on receipt of Ex.P.7/requisition in regard thereto at 9.20 a.m on 28.06.1996. During post mortem he found various symptoms as found noted in Ex.P.10/post mortem report. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injury to head and chest about 6 to 12 hours prior to autopsy. As Ex.P.10 is in English and it forms part of the records, we do not propose to restate the symptoms noted therein once again in this judgement to save time. The Doctor is of the opinion that by the use of M.O.2 once, the two injuries found on the head of the deceased are possible. He would state that if the injured falls down after attack, there is a possibility of temporal bone and ribs getting fractured.;