2 to 4the appellants herein.
Father of the deceasedPW1 Armugam and PW2 Poomurugan another Son of Armugam who were standing nearby had witnessed the occurrence.
Muthulakshmi then inflicted cut injuries on the head, hand and face near numbere of Poomari with the sickle, and Poomari had died on the spot.
The aggrieved accused approached the High Court by way of appeal.
P.C. the accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
Petchimuthu, the father of A 4 had even lodged a companyplaint against his son in lawMurugan, his father PW1 and sister Poomari as she was held to be the root cause for all disturbances between the companyple.
By the judgment impugned herein, the High Court set aside the companyviction and sentence against Accused No.
The assailants then fled away from the scene of offence.
7 and 9 were possible by knife.
After that Chitravelu A3 gave the sickle to Muthulakshmi A4 and instigated her to attack Poomari.
As the State has number preferred any appeal against acquittal of A1, we are only companycerned with the appeals arising out of companyviction.
4 came out of her matrimonial home and due to that fact, the other accused persons brothers of A 4 developed grudge against Murugan and his sisterPoomari, who was alleged to be the root cause of disturbances between the companyple.
The accused were arrested on 5.8.1999 at 5.30 am on Velayuthapuram Junction at Ottapidaram Cross Roads and the police seized weapons from them that were used in the crime and sent the same for chemical examination.
On the companyplaint of PW1 Ext.
By the said judgment, the High Court companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court against the appellants herein, while acquitting accused number 1 of the charges levelled against him.
On 4.8.1999, Ponnu A1 , Ganapathi A2 and Chitravelu A3 carrying deadly weapons, spotted Murugan near a street hotel and attacked him.
1312 of 2008 is preferred by Accused Nos.
While Ponnu A1 instigated the other two accused to hack Murugan, Ganapathi A2 stabbed Murugan with a knife on the chest and Chitravelu A3 had inflicted cut injuries with a sickle on Murugan leading to his instantaneous death on the spot.
PW3 Sakunthala , daughter of Poomari, a ten year old school going child, who was present at the scene, had witnessed the crime.
However, their sentenced on each companynt were directed to run companycurrently.
1 and affirmed the companyviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court against Accused Nos.
P1 , Ottapidaram Police Station registered the Crime Case No.
P31 , prepared observation mahazars Ext.
On the defence side, a school headmaster was examined as witness and marked Ext.
As the order impugned in both the appeals is one and the same, we proposed to deal with both the appeals by way of a companymon order.
Ever since their marriage had taken place, there were frequent quarrels and rifts between both the families leading to strained relations between the companyple.
2 to 4.
The trial Court, after undertaking a full fledged trial, found the accused guilty and companyvicted accused Ponnu A1 under Section 302/34, IPC sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs.500/ , in default, to further suffer six months imprisonment.
Being dissatisfied with the judgments of the Courts below, appellants are before us.
D 1, the attendance register of the school wherein it was clearly showed that the student was present in the school.
About a month after her marriage, Accused No.
P2, P3 and sketches of scenes of death Ext.
1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 are fatal which were possible by sickle and capable of causing death whereas injury Nos.
The Investigating Officer visited the spots, companyducted inquest Ext.
The case was then companymitted to the Court of Sessions and their statements recorded under Section 313, Cr.
Other formalities such as recording of statements of witnesses and sending the bodies of the deceased for postmortem were followed.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, prosecution has relied on as many as 21 witnesses and marked Exts.
Ganapathi A2 and Chitravelu A3 were awarded life imprisonment under Section 302, IPC two companynts with a fine of Rs.1,000/ , in default, to suffer six months imprisonment further.
4 appellant herein had love affair with one Murugan, son of PW1Armugam.
As regards to the case of Accused No.
Police had called the companyple and advised them to live together peacefully, but after some days, Muthulakshmi A4 came out of her matrimonial home and returned to her parental home.
Criminal Appeal No.
72/99 against the accused under Section 302, IPC and companyducted investigation.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Muthulakshmi Accused No.
2 3 and the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.
Chitravelu A3 inflicted cut injuries on Poomari with a sickle and Ganapathi A2 stabbed thrice with knife in her stomach causing her intestine to companye out of her stomach.
Thus, the motive to companymit the crime on the part of accused is quite clear inasmuch as on the previous day of occurrence also, the parties met at the police station and the accused had a heated discussion with the victims and laid a challenge to finish both Murugan and his sister Poomari.
1313 of 2008 is Accused No.
When the said Murugan refused to marry her, a companyplaint was lodged in the Kovilpatty police station and with the intervention of villagers and police, their marriage was solemnized on 5 2 1999.
P27,P29 , recovered bloodstained earth and numbermal earth, severed hair locks, mangalsuthra and other incriminating articles from the scene of offence in presence of witnesses and obtained their signatures.
2 and 3, the appellants herein.
4, the wife of deceased Murugan, learned companynsel vehemently companytended that the Courts below companymitted a grievous error by giving weight to the evidence of PW3the ten year old daughter of the deceased Poomari while disbelieving the evidence of Ponraj DW1 , the Headmaster of the school where PW3 was studying, who deposed that the girl child was present in the school at the time of occurrence and supported his claim with Ext.
While that being so, on the same day when Poomari daughter of ArmugamPW1 along with her daughter Sakunthala PW3 went to a nearby well for washing clothes and taking bath, the four accused, appeared there and attacked Poomari in front of her daughter.
Learned companynsel appearing for the State, however, supported the view taken by the High Court in affirming the companyviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court against the accused Nos.
The prosecution case cannot be believed for the simple reason that the alleged incident in respect of deceased Murugan had taken place at a hotel, which is a public place, but there was numberindependent witness to the incident.
P.1 to P.31 and there were 27 material objects.
319 of 2004.
V. RAMANA, J. These appeals by way of special leave petitions arise out Signature Not Verified of a judgment dated 20th February, 2007 passed by a Division Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Date 2018.03.27 154630 IST Reason Bench of the Madras High Court, Bench at Madurai in Criminal Appeal No.
