P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and Shanmugam were companying back from office of P.W.9.
1 herein with a view to create a defence.
Accused No.4 has been companyvicted only under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code.
Allegedly, the portion allotted to P.W.I was larger in area companypared to the portion given to Appellants.
Accused No.l, according to the prosecution witnesses, was also present in the police station.
They, allegedly, were once assaulted by the accused.
The deceased was taken to the hospital by the P.Ws.
An application was filed by P.W.I for measurement of his property, wherefor he also paid requisite fees.
It is wholly unlikely that the Accused No.l wanted to murder the deceased owing to the property dispute.
He, apart from examining Ws.
In the meantime, the Inspector of Police, P.W.15 started investigation.
P.W.I fixed a new door and also inducted tenant s .
The accused persons admittedly were in custody from 8.7.1994 to 12.7.1995.
A companyplaint was made by P.W.I to the Head Constable of the police station, P.W.13, which was reduced to writing.
Appellants are said to have erected a wall and, thus, effectively prevented him from entering into the house through the main door.
The defence raised by Accused No.
2 herein, admittedly, wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police on 8.7.1994, a companyy whereof was sent to the Inspector of the Police Station, P. W. 15.
1, 2 and 3 were arrested on 8.7.1994.
Upon measurement, they allegedly informed the parties that the portion allotted to P.W.I runs upto the middle portion of the house and advised them to erect a wall, whereupon, allegedly, it was stated by the accused that they would number permit P.W.I to do so.
2 and 3 are before us.
All the accused pursuant thereto were summoned by the police and were warned.
Further the evidence of 1st, 2nd and 3rd witnesses categorically prove beyond reasonable doubt and that the 3rd accused Mottaippan has attacked Shanmugam on his head with the help of wooden stick which is marked as O.I and the 2nd accused Kuruppusamy has attacked Shanmugam on the face and other parts with the help of wooden stick which is marked as M.O.2 and thereby caused the death of Shanmugam, and that 4 1 accused Banumathi has attacked 2nd witness Lakshmi with the help of wooden stick which is marked as M.O.3 and caused injuries viz.
1 was also adjacent to the property allotted to P.W.I and Appellant herein.
She also fell down.
Accused allegedly came there variously armed.
According to him, the Investigating Officer was harassing them and had number been investigating the case properly, as they had been picked up by the police, although they were number at fault.
The defence, however, was number accepted by the companyrts below, on the premise that the same was by way of an.after thought.
R W. 1 came along with the wife of the deceased.
Appellant No.2, allegedly, asked the deceased as to why he had been giving trouble to them whereupon a quarrel ensued.
Accused No.l was acquitted of the said charge.
Tenants were allegedly forced to vacate the house and had been threatened by the accused persons, in respect whereof a companyplaint was made.
1 was allotted another ancestral house and some lands towards his share.
They were asked to see the Village Administrative Officer by P.Ws.
Appellant No.l was in the police station at the time when the companyplaint was lodged.
Appellant No.l also, allegedly, assaulted his daughter with fists.
P.W.2 and Shanmugam were present.
The deceased had, allegedly, boarded a bus and went to the police station where he was detained.
W.2 and the deceased Shanmugam were on visiting terms with P.W. 1.
Shanmugam was referred to Coimbator Medical College, where he died at about 10.40 a.m. on 6.7.1994.
Accused Nos.
Allegedly, despite registration of a Deed of Partition, P.W.I was number allowed to enjoy the portion of the property allotted to him.
Evidently he also came there to lodge a companyplaint.
They came to the bus stop as the deceased and P.W.2 wanted to catch a bus for going to Velayuthampalayam.
Thus, only Accused Nos.
2 was allotted a portion on the eastern side of the house.
Accused No.3 surrendered before the Court on the same day.
P.W.l Chinnasamy was given a share of the building on the southern side, whereas accused No.2, Appellant No.l herein, was allotted share on the numberthern side.
Apart from the injured witnesses P.Ws.l and 2 and W.3 , an employee of a power loom factory belonging to the P.W.I, was also present there and witnessed the occurrence.
In its judgment, the High Court opined that the letter must have been dispatched on 11.7.1994, after the arrest of Appellant No.
A Village Administrative Officer P.W.9 and the Surveyor P.W.10 were appointed for the said purpose.
Appellant No.
Accused No.
P.W.I is said to have given a sum of Rs.10,000/ to his father as the portion of the house allotted to him was larger in size.
1 and 2.
In his deposition, P. W. 15 admitted to have received the said letter.
1 a companytusion on her right hand ankle, 2 a companytusion on her right leg knee and 3 companytusion measuring 3 cm x 7 cm on the left side of her hip and that he has given a wound certificate which is marked as Ex.
1 and 2, also examined Shanmugam, the deceased.
The incident took place on 5.7.1994 at about 6.00 p.m. The parties were members of a joint family.
Accused No,4 allegedly assaulted P.W.2 on her leg.
They, along with accused No.3, as also the wife of Appellant No.2 accused No.4 were tried jointly for alleged companymission of murder of one Shanmugam under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 thereof.
A partition took place as regards their residential house.
Accordingly, the parties went to the office of W.9 at 5 p.m. on 5.7.94.
9 and 10.
Appellant No.
J. Leave granted.
B. Sinha.
Appellants herein were accused Nos.2 and 3 before the learned Trial Judge.
They came to measure the property.
4 was that as the deceased attempted to stab him with a pichuva knife, he picked up a stick, which was lying nearby and assaulted him.
He also left the place.
After the assault, allegedly, a lady shopkeeper and some others interfered and separated the parties.
Appellant No.2 is said to have assaulted the deceased on his head with a firewood log, whereas Appellant No.l is said to have assaulted him on his right cheek with a firewood log.
He was number in a position to say who had assaulted the lady.
P.W.I intervened.
He was assaulted on his leg and on the back of his chest.
He did number numberice whether the brother viz.
