Having rejected this stand of the accused, the High Court analysed the evidence to companyclude that the companyviction was justified.
The accused took the plea of false implication and alternatively pleaded that the assaults were made in exercise of right of private defence.
The factual scenario as described by the prosecution need to be numbered in brief.
The trial companyrt placing reliance on evidence of PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 came to hold that the accused was responsible for the death of the deceased.
Plea of the accused that the assaults were made in exercise of the right of private defence was number accepted, more particularly in view of the fact that even after the deceased had fallen down, the accused inflicted a further blow on the neck.
The occurrence was witnessed by PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3.
2002 Supp 3 SCR 113 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The accused is in appeal before this Court against judgment of the Madras High Court upholding his companyviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC and companysequential sentence of imprisonment for life.
Accused and others went to the place where the sheep was tied and they untied it from the rope.
Learned companynsel for the appellant submitted that the evidence of witnesses examined to substantiate the stand of right of private defence has been lightly brushed aside by the trial companyrt and the High Court.
Palaniswamy hereinafter referred to as the deceased impounded the sheep which, according to him, was destroying his crops.
This led to exchange of words between the deceased and the accused.
When the deceased fell down after receiving injuries on his hand and left shoulder, the accused again inflicted another blow on his neck.
Information was lodged at the police Station and on companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was placed and the accused faced trial.
On 19.8.1989, there was exchange of hot words over the release of a sheep.
