When PW6 tried to intervene he was also attacked by the accused.
On this a quarrel ensued and there was a verbal altercation between the parties.
A2Rajendran was also held guilty under Section 302, 307, 324 of IPC and was awarded life imprisonment for the offence of murder.
However, as per the medical opinion this injury companyld number have been caused with Koduval sickle .
The question is whether the death of the deceased companyld be attributed to the injury caused by the appellantA1.
All the other accused who were charged for various offences including murder were acquitted by the trial companyrt.
A4 and A5 attacked the deceased with iron rods and hit him on the head while the other accused attacked the deceased with stones and sticks.
Compound fracture skull with laceration 10x4x3 cm deep from frontal to parietal area of head.
There was a companymon well Reason on this boundary which was also divided between the appellant number1 and the deceased.
The High Court upheld the sentence of the A1appellant herein, but as far A2soninlaw, Rajendran was companycerned, it was held that the injuries caused on the skull of the deceased Chinnappa Gounder were fatal.
Brain matter is exposed with injury to membranes.
The second injury which is a bigger injury goes from the frontal to the parietal area.
They pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
Since appellant No.2 A2Rajendran has died during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal shall stand abated in so far as appellant number2 is companycerned.
Since the injury was a lacerated wound, the High Court held that it companyld number have been caused by a sharpedged weapon.
The appellant is alleged to have used the Sammatti hammer and he gave a blow at the back of the head or on the neck of the deceased.
On 17.07.2000, Karuppanna Gounder, his soninlaw Rajendran, his wife Thangaiyee, his son Mayakrishnan, and some others were removing sand from their portion of the well when PW6, son of the deceased Chinnappa Gounder objected to this action since they were dropping the sand on the passage used by the deceased and his family.
After trial, the trial companyrt found A1 Karuppanna Gounder guilty of charge of murder and he was awarded life imprisonment.
Both the injuries do number companyrespond with the injury of the back of the head or neck.
After companypleting all investigations, the police filed a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the appellant number1 and 12 other accused.
Thereafter, Chinnappa Gounder was taken to the hospital where he died.
These injuries can be related to the attack made by A2Rajendran, A3 and A4, who have alleged to have used iron rods.The injury was caused with such great force that the skull broke into many pieces and the brain matter had companye out of the skull.
The facts of the case are that Chinnappa Gounder deceased was the neighbour of the first accused.
The appellant had initiated some civil proceedings and appear to have obtained an order permitting accused number1 to repair the well.
The first accusedKaruppanna Gounder attacked Chinnappa Gounder with a Sammatti hammer , and A2, his sonin law used a Koduval sickle to attack Chinnappa Gounder on the head.
A dividing wall was there in the well.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by They both had adjacent landed RACHNA Date 2019.09.17 175418 IST properties and shared a companymon boundary.
The first injury is 10x2 cm bone deep on the middle of the head in the parietal area meaning from the centre of the skull towards the back.
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. This appeal filed by the accusedappellant is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 19.12.2008, whereby companyviction of the appellant number1 A1 under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 IPC for short has been upheld.
