Thiruppathy hereinafter referred to as the deceased was employed with them as a farm servant.
The appellant attacked the deceased, Thiruppathy with a wooden log on his right shoulder, right forearm and on his head and the deceased fell down and fainted.
When the deceased, Thiruppathy went to the house of Dhandapani, the appellant and the second accused followed the deceased.
Charges were framed.
Immediately thereafter, P.W. 1 and her husband, Ramalingam went to Uppiliyapuram Police Station and gave a companyplaint and on the basis of which F.I.R. was lodged and a case was registered as Crime No.
Large number of criminal and civil cases were pending between the parties and the present case was the outcome of enmity.
The land of the accused appellant is situated adjacent to the land of P.W. 1.
The Trial Court found that accusations were number established against the second accused and he was acquitted.
P.W.12, companyducted the Post Mortem on 12.12.2001 and opined that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained on head.
It was also submitted that the injuries were on number vital parts and, therefore, it cannot be said that the accused had intention to cause death.
When P.W. 1 and her husband came to know about the same on 11.12.2001, they wanted to companyvene a Panchayat and, therefore, P.W.1, her husband and others gathered in front of the house of W. 1 at about 2.00 p.m. At that time, the appellant and the second accused came in a TVS 50 vehicle and both of them pulled the deceased Thiruppathy and assaulted him with hands.
The High Court did number accept the stand that the occurrence took place in the companyrse of altercation and other pleas.
Since the accused persons pleaded innocence, trial was held.
The deceased asked him why he had closed the water pipe line, the appellant abused him and assaulted him with a stick.
They had a dispute regarding water pipe line.
The second accused took out billhook out of his shirt and threatened the witnesses with dire companysequences.
The stand taken before the High Court was reiterated in the present appeal.
Prosecution version, in a nutshell, is as follows The incident in question took place at around 2 p.m. on 9.12.2001, W.1 and her husband were working in the Postal Department and they are the owners of land in their native place, Kanjeerimalaipudur Kattukottagai.
The case was companymitted to the Court of Sessions.
The deceased was working under PW1 and her husband.
Two days before the date of incident i.e. 9.12.2001 when the deceased was irrigating, the appellant closed the water pipe line.
Before the High Court the primary stand was that the so called eye witnesses companyld number have seen the occurrence as claimed.
This according to PW.4 she actually did number see the occurrence and also number did number see the accused persons assaulting but she came and found that the deceased was lying severely injured.
In order to establish accusations, 14 witnesses were examined.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai Bench, upholding the companyviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC .
Investigation was undertaken and on companypletion thereof the chargesheet was filed.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
658/2001 under Section 302 I.P.C. and investigation started.
On the earlier occasion when the deceased went over to the field and questioned the companyduct of the accused, altercation took place and companyplaint was given against him.
The companyaccused was tried for offence punishable for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 114 and 506 2 IPC and was found number guilty and was acquitted of the charges.
Panchayat was companyvened.
They intervened and prevented them from attacking the deceased.
It was also submitted that the medical evidence was at variance with the so called ocular evidence.
The deceased filed a companyplaint in the Uppiliyapuram Police Station.
In order to prove its plea of innocence, three witnesses were examined.
Then the second accused gave billhook to the appellant and both of them ran away from the place of occurrence.
