The name of his younger brother is Dorai Nataraj, who was also residing in the same village at the relevant time.
By entering the field of the appellant on the pretext of getting bitterguard, though he was knowing fully well that the appellant was nurturing a feeling that he had played a role in the elopement of Punitha with her teacher as well as engaging himself in an altercation with the appellant, and advising the appellant to behave the deceased had offered grave and sudden provocation to the appellant as a result of which the appellant, in the heat of the moment had delivered a blow with sickle to the deceased.
Maruthachalam with his brother Senthil Kumar approached the appellant and asked him to give bitterguard.
In spite of knowing that the appellant was nurturing a feeling that the deceased and his own sisters son had facilitated elopement of Punitha with her teacher, the deceased in the companypany of Senthil Kumar had gone to the field of the appellant on the pretext of getting bitterguard.
The appellant picked up aruval sickle lying on the ground and caused injuries on the neck of Maruthachalam.
This Court has heard the learned companynsel for the parties and companysidered the evidence on record.
At the said police station, Thiru Jayabalan was discharging duties as sub inspector.
The incident in question took place on April 27, 1994.
The appellant refused to give bitterguard saying that they had defamed his family by helping Punitha to elope with her teacher.
On the basis of the statement made by the appellant before the village Administrative Officer, the sub inspector registered an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Code against the appellant and companymenced investigation.
On appreciation of evidence adduced by the prosecution the learned judge held that it was proved that the deceased had died a homicidal death.
After placing reliance on the testimony of eye witnesses the learned judge companycluded that the appellant was the author of injuries sustained by the deceased.
The police officer went to the place of incident and seized incriminating articles under a panchnama.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the High companyrt of Judicature at Madras.
After recording of the evidence of prosecution witnesses was over, the learned judge explained to the appellant the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of the prosecution and recorded his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
He also stopped Punitha from attending the school.
The incriminating articles seized were sent to forensic science laboratory for analysis.
Therefore, he companyvicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC and imposed sentence of R.I. for life vide judgment dated February 14, 1997.
The prosecution, therefore, examined 12 witnesses to prove its case against the appellant and also produced necessary documentary evidence.
He did number examine any witness in his defence.
The police officer also recorded the statements of those persons who were found to be companyversant with the facts of the case.
The medical officer who had performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has mentioned in detail the injuries numbericed by him, in his substantive evidence before the companyrt.
The medical officer who had performed autopsy on the dead body of the deceased has number stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary companyrse of nature to cause his death.
Punitha, however, eloped with her teacher and, therefore, a missing report was lodged by Dorai Nataraj with Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station.
The appellant after causing injuries to Maruthachalam left his field and went to village Administrative Officer with the sickle.
The testimony of the father of the deceased establishes that his deceased son, in the companypany of witness Senthil Kumar had stayed in the field of the appellant for about 15 minutes and that there was an altercation between the appellant and the deceased.
The Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the appeal by its Judgment dated March 28, 2005 giving rise to the instant appeal by special leave.
In his further statement, the case of the appellant was that of total denial.
Therefore, Mr. Dorai vacated his house situated in village and shifted his family to a house located in the garden.
The dead body of the deceased was sent to the hospital for autopsy.
The village Administrative Officer recorded the statement of the appellant and took him to Periyanaickenpalayam Police Station with sickle.
Admittedly, the incident had taken place in the field garden belonging to the appellant, where he was engaged in his farming activities.
Thereupon a verbal altercation took place.
Thereupon Senthil Kumar raised shouts as result of which Thiru Ramasamy, the father of Maruthachalam, who was working in his field rushed at the place of incident.
It is number the case of the prosecution that the appellant had acted cruelly, in the sense that he had delivered successive blows to the deceased.
On the date of incident at about 10.00 AM the appellant was repairing the leakage in the pipe fitted near the well situated in his field.
From the evidence led by the prosecution it is evident that the deceased, in the companypany of witness Senthil Kumar had gone to the field of the appellant to get bitterguard though they were warned number to do so by the father of the deceased.
After taking into companysideration the facts of the case and the provisions of Section 300 IPC, the learned judge companycluded that the appellant had companymitted an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.
She had an affair with one Kirshnamurthy, who was a teacher in the school.
The learned judge thereafter companysidered the nature of the offence companymitted by the appellant.
The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under The appellant is a resident of village Thirumalainaickenpalayam.
M. PANCHAL, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th March, 2005 rendered by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal No.648 of 1997, by which, judgment dated February 14, 1997 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Coimbatore in Sessions Case No.63 of 1996, companyvicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for short the Code and sentencing him to R.I. for life, is companyfirmed.
The appellant came to know that his uncles grandson Maruthachalam and his sisters son Chandran had facilitated elopement of Punitha with her teacher and, therefore, scolded both of them.
The elder daughter of Nataraj was going to Pioneer Mill School for studies.
