MANI ALIAS UDATTU MAN Vs. STATE REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellants who were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC). The 8th accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 148 and 302, IPC. Of the seven accused persons who were convicted by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, two separate appeals were filed.

(3.) Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows : PW-1 who is Murugammal the mother of the Prabha (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) has stated that her second son Babu had already been murdered by the accused in this case namely Ali, Cheyya Babu, Udattumani, Muthukumar, Jayaraman, Karikadi Moideen and others and that on 8.3.2001 at 11.00 p.m in the night all the aforesaid accused armed with knife came to her house and with the intention to murder her son Prabha, threatened him and that later on 9.3.2001 at 5.30 a.m. in the morning all the accused in this case armed with knives came to her house and that on seeing them she sent away her son Prabha from the house and that the accused had chased him and that she also followed them along with her daughter-in-law. After crossing DH Road and Mutha Tamil Nagar, they ran for some distance and that at that spot the accused Ali and Udattumani attacked her son Prabha with knives and inflicted out injuries on his head, and the accused Cheyya, Muthukumar, Kovil Babu, Jayaraman and Karikattai Moideen inflicted out injuries on the neck, shoulder, hands, legs and several parts of the body indiscriminately, and the accused Logu caught Prabha by the legs. Thereafter of the accused together ran away from there and that her son was lying in the pool of blood and succumbed to his injuries and that later, she and her daughter-in-law went to Kodunkaiyoor Police Station and lodged the complaint Ex.P-1. The knives exhibited in this Court were used by the accused to murder her son and the said 7 knives were marked as the M.O.1 series. As per the charge-sheet filed by the SHO of P-6 Kodunkaiyoor Police Station, Chennai, against the accused, the deceased Prabha was residing within the limits of the Kodunkaiyoor Police Station, and that the accused were also residing in the same area. The accused had previous enmity due to which they had murdered Babu, the brother of Prabha, and that the family members of the deceased were being threatened by the accused and that they also proposed to murder the deceased and due to this reason, all the accused with the common intention of committing the murder of Prabha, formed an unlawful assembly and armed with dangerous weapons like knife, sword etc. on 9.3.2001 at 5.30 p.m. stealthily entered the house of Prabha at 10 Netaji Lane, Nehru Nagar, Kodunkaiyoor, knowing that Prabha was present. On seeing them, Prabha escaped through the temple side, and all the accused chased Prabha, and entered the compound of Sekhars house situated near the tea stall situated nearby, and indiscriminately attacked Prabha and caused injuries with the knife on the head, neck, face, chest, shoulder, hands and legs of Prabha. Due to the said injuries, Prabha died at the spot, and, therefore, it was stated that the accused are guilty for offences under Sections 147, 148 read with Section 302, IPC. When the accused were produced before the X Judicial Magistrate, all the copies of the documents relating to the case were handed to them free of charge. The matter was then committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge. After hearing the arguments from both sides and considering the documents and evidence, the accused were charged under Section 148 read with Section 302, IPC and on being questioned the accused pleaded not guilty and demanded trial. To establish the charge against the accused, the prosecution, examined fifteen witnesses and exhibited P-1 to P-28 and marked M.O.1 to M.O.16. Placing reliance on the evidence of P.W.1, the conviction was recorded though P.Ws. 2 to 8 resiled from their statement during investigation. Before the High Court the stand was that since almost all the prosecution witnesses who were turned as eye-witnesses did not Suppl ort the prosecution version, the conviction should not have been recorded. Discarding this plea, the High Court noticed that the evidence of PW1 was sufficient to hold all the persons guilty. Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed. The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated. The present appeal is by A1, A3, A4 and A7. Learned counsel for the respondent Suppl orted the judgment of the trial Court and the High Court.