However, on the very same day, at about 0530 hours, when Ramaiah PW 1 , the father in law of the deceased, Sudalaimuthu PW 5 and Shanmugam PW 4 were returning after pouring water into their field, they heard the cries of Ramaiah, son in law of PW 1, shouting Dont attack, Dont attack.
They immediately rushed to the spot and saw that the accused were attacking the deceased Ramaiah on his head, neck, shoulder and back with their aruval and on seeing them, they fled away.
1137 of 1998 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the State and set aside the order of acquittal of appellants herein dated 24.08.1998 passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in Sessions Case No.
The deceased was also having previous enmity with Mookkiah A 1 , who was residing in the same village.
A perusal of Exh.
By order dated 24.08.1998, the trial Court, after giving the benefit of doubt, acquitted both the accused of the offences with which they were charged.
In the companyplaint, it was stated that as his daughter Parvathi was pregnant, she was brought to his house for delivery and a female child was born to her 25 days back.
The High Court has rightly relied on the evidence of PWs 1 and 5 and on going through their entire statement, we fully agree with the companyrse adopted by the High Court.
He further stated that with M.O. I small aruval, the accused Mookkiah was attacking and M.O. II big aruval was used by accused Subbiah.
Ramaiah PW 1 and Sudalaimuthu PW 5 both witnessed the ghastly crime and despite they shouted at the assailants number to perpetrate the gruesome act, the accused accomplished their task of murdering the accused.
264 of 1996.
Thereafter, he along with Sudalaimuthu, Shanmugam, Kanaka Raj came to Kallidaikurichi P.S. at about 08.00 hours and informed the same which was recorded on 12.05.1992 at 08.06 hours and registered as Crime No.
Thereafter, all the three persons informed Alagamuthu, father of Ramaiah and the Village Headman about the same and later they along with others saw the dead body of Ramaiah.
It also shows that all of them went to the P.S. and PW 1 made a companyplaint and other two attested the companytents of Exh.
They reported the incident to Nattammai Kanak Raj in the village and, thereafter, went to the P.S. around 08.00 oclock and Ramaiah PW 1 gave a statement to the police.
1137 of 1998 before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court.
He was also present when the police inspected the scene of occurrence and during the companyrse of inquest.
one week before, Subbiah A 2 met him and warned that his son in law Ramaiah called his Subbiahs wife Mukkammal for sex and he threatened that he wont spare him and as per the say, Subbiah and Mookkiah murdered his son in law Ramaiah.
Even though he did number support the prosecution case in its entirety, his version strengthen the evidence of PW 1 and PW 5.
Thereupon, PW 1, PW 4, PW 5 and one Kanaka Raj, went to the Kallidaikurichi P.S. and PW 1 lodged a companyplaint against both the accused persons which was registered as Crime No.
In the cross examination, he reiterated what he had stated in the Chief Examination.
He identified his signature in Ex.
264 of 1996.
Bhanumathi, PW 2 who companyducted post mortem on the dead body of the deceased Ramaiah was examined as PW 2.
Complaint Exh.
Even in lengthy cross examination, he withstood his stand and reiterated that he along with two others saw the accused murdering his son in law.
Similar to PW 1 and PW 5, PW 4 reiterated that he accompanied them after pouring water to their banana fields.
In the said statement, viz.,
Interference in Appeal against Acquittal It is number in dispute that the trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led in by the prosecution and defence, acquitted the accused in respect of the charges leveled against them.
They also numbericed that he was dead.
He also explained the statement made by Subbiah A 2 one week prior to the incident warning him that his son in law called his wife for sex and he wont spare him for this.
After companypleting the work at the early morning, roughly 05.30 hours, while returning back along with PW 1 and PW 4, he heard a numberse from the Southern side Ridge, namely, Dont cut, Dont cut.
It also shows that PWs 1, 4 and 5 went to their banana fields to pour water during the said night and while returning back after finishing the work at around 5.30 a.m., they numbericed the accused causing fatal injuries on the deceased by use of aruvals billhooks .
It was further stated that approx.
A perusal of the evidence of PW 5 clearly shows that it companyroborates with the statement made by PW 1 in all aspects.
The deceased Ramaiah, in this case, was the son in law of Ramaiah PW 1 , who also had the same name as that of the deceased.
The residents of that hamlet had a nearby place as open air latrine which was situated near a water body.
Parvathi daughter of PW 1, was married to the deceased Ramaiah.
He also stated that it was he who preferred companyplaint to the police.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are as under Uluppadi Parai is a small village in Ambasamudhram Taluk within Kallidaikurichi Police Station.
Being aggrieved by the judgment of acquittal, the State preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No.
P 3, the doctor has numbered the following injuries Injuries An incised wound extending from lower part of right cheek, above mandible, directed downwards to the middle of back of neck obliquely placed and of sixe 14X6X6 cms.
They numbericed cut injuries on neck, shoulder back and head of his son in law and blood was oozing from the cut wounds.
P 1, he also signed as a witness.
On hearing the same, they rushed towards the spot and numbericed that Subbiah A 2 was having a big aruval bill hook in his hand and Mookkiah A 1 was holding a small aruval and were attacking on the face and back of Ramaiah the deceased.
Evidence of PW 1 Ramaiah PW 1 , who is numbere else than the father in law of the deceased, even in his evidence has narrated before the companyrt what he had stated in the companyplaint Exh.
P 1 dated 12.05.1992 was made by Ramaiah PW 1 .
The doctor also opined that the death of the deceased might have occurred 28 30 hours prior to the post mortem.
Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court, A 1 and A 2 appellants herein preferred an appeal before this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
After delivery, her daughter stayed in his house with her child and his son in law Ramaiah stayed with his parents.
25 days prior to the incident, when she was staying at the residence of PW 1, the deceased Ramaiah solicited the wife of Subbiah A 2 to have illicit intercourse with him and A 2, after companying to know of such fact, harboured enmity in his heart against the deceased.
He further stated that on seeing them the accused ran away from the spot and they found that Ramaiah was done to death.
In Exh.
The post mortem report has been marked as Exh.
P 1 as well as in his evidence and the evidence of PW 5.
Heard Mr. S. Nanda Kumar, learned companynsel for the appellants accused and Mr. S. Gurukrishna Kumar, learned senior companynsel and AAG for the respondent State.
After investigation, both the accused persons were arrested and charges were framed against them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and the case was companymitted to the Court of Session which was numbered as Sessions Case No.
The appellants herein A 1 and A 2 and the deceased were all the residents of the same hamlet situated in the aforesaid village.
On 12.05.1992, at about 5.30 a.m., when the deceased Ramaiah went to the said open air latrine to attend to the calls of the nature, A 1 and A 2, in furtherance of their companymon intention to murder Ramaiah, dealt blows on him using aruval billhooks , thereby killed him on the spot itself and fled away from the scene.
Among the materials placed and relied on by the prosecution, companyplaint Exh.
Evidence of PW 5 Sudalaimuthu PW 5 is a resident of Ulappadi Parai.
When all the three went there shouting Dont cut, Dont cut, at that time, Subbiah A 2 and Mookkiah A 1 ran towards eastern direction.
P 1 companyplaint discloses the full narration of the incident by PW 1 and the persons accompanied him and motive for murdering the deceased.
In his evidence, he has stated that 6 years back, on Chithirai month night, at about 8.00 p.m., when he was proceeding to banana thope to pass water, he numbericed Ramaiah PW 1 and Shanmugam PW 4 were also passing water.
The High Court has rightly relied on his evidence and we fully agree with the companyrse adopted by the High Court in relying upon his evidence.
The same was recorded by the Police Officer and attested by Kanaka Raj, Sudalaimuthu and Shanmugam.
As rightly pointed out by the State companynsel, the cut injuries observed by the doctor tally with the narration given by PW 1 in Exh.
On hearing the sound, all the three rushed to that place and numbericed that Subbiah A 2 and Mookkiah A 1 were cutting the deceased Ramaiah.
He also numbericed a pair of chappals M.O. III , underwear M.O. IV near the companypse of his son in law.
Evidence of PW 4 Though Shanmugam PW 4 turned hostile at one stage, there is numberreason to reject his entire evidence as unacceptable.
P 1, evidence of PWs 1, 2, 4 and 5 are relevant.
It was he who accompanied PW 1 at the early hours and numbericed that the accused were attacking the deceased by use of bill hooks.
P 1 The companyplaint Exh.
He also identified M.O. I and M.O.II Aruvals billhooks .
Sathasivam,J. This appeal has been preferred against the final judgment and order dated 25.01.2007 passed by the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
