The companyplaint was lodged around 7.30 PM.
The deceased Murugan hereinafter referred to as the deceased is his sisters son.
It was numbered that the occurrence had taken place around 5 PM and immediate companycern was to render medical assistance.
The victim tumbled on his feet in the street.
During the occurrence in the present case, the shirt and dhoti of PW.1 became blood stained and the shirt of PW2 also became blood stained.
The injured, who by then had lost his companysciousness, was put on a cart and taken to the private hospital of one Anbalagan by PWs.
under Ex at 7.30 a.m on 16.1.1990.
He was examined during inquest.
P.W.2 had also given evidence in total companyroboration to the oral evidence of PW1 on all material aspects as referred to above.
The personal wearing apparels of PWs.
1 and 2.
He stated that, MOs.4 and 5 are his shirt and lungi, which he handed over at the Police Station, after getting change dress from his house.
M03 is the weapon of offence in the hands of A1, which he used in inflicting the fatal injury on the deceased.
P.2/ observation mahazar as well as the recovery of MOs.
PW.3 witnessed the preparation of Ex.
l and 2 reached the police station, taking the dead body in that cart.
With that knife, he stabbed on the left side of the chest of the deceased and ran towards south.
On seeing this, P.Ws.l and 2 ran towards him and gave their hand of support.
But the Doctor was number available there and Murugan breathed his last outside the hospital itself while he was in the cart.
MOs.l and 2 are the shirt and dhoti of PW1 and after getting change dress from his house, he surrounded them at the police station.
The medical officer was of the opinion that the deceased appeared to have died on account of the stab wound over the vital organ, namely heart.
Further injuries on A1 were of superficial nature and therefore, the trial companyrt was number justified in directing acquittal.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows PW.1 is residing at Paloothu.
As already stated, on the day in question, the festival related to washing the bulls decorating them painting the horns and then after garlanding the same, they would be taken around the town in a joyous manner.
A2 was companying behind the deceased with a stick in his hand.
Present appellant is the son of A2.
PW.6 was the Sub Inspector of Police in the Police Station during the relevant time, before whom, PW 1 gave the companyplaint.
In fact two persons were tried in the said Sessions Case.
PW1 knows the accused.
One other person by name Chinnasamy also witnessed the occurrence and he gave a hot chase to Al.
1 and 2 were produced at the police station.
He was examined during inquest by the investigating Officer.
The said acquittal was primarily on the ground that there was delay in lodging the FIR, and that the injury on the accused was number explained.
Al is the son of A2 and they are also residents of the same place.
The house of Chellappa Thevar is in the middle street of the said village.
There was an earlier incident regarding the companystruction of a house between A2 and the father of the deceased.
Immediately, PWs.
Al was proceeding from south to numberth in the same road and he was armed with a knife.
The deceased was also residing in the same place.
The deceased was companying from numberth to south in that road bringing two bulls.
The occurrence had taken place on 15.1.1990 around 5.00 p.m. It was a festival day the day following the festival of Pongal, which falls on 14.1.1990 .
Pl is that companyplaint attested by PW.2 and one Chinnasamy, who accompanied them.
Though State had questioned the acquittal of both the accused persons, leave was granted by the High Court only in respect of the present appellant i.e. A1.
On that day, PW 1 went towards the house of one Chellappa Thevar and he was standing there for some time.
By the trial companyrts judgment, A2 was also acquitted.
The High Court found that in view of the evidence of PWs 1 2 the trial companyrt was number justified in directing acquittal.
The trial companyrt did number accept the prosecution version and directed acquittal primarily on the following grounds There is an inordinate delay in lodging the companyplaint with the police There are materials to show that the companyplaint was prepared after deliberations and discussions There is delay in sending the material records to the companyrt A1 had an injury and that had number been explained by the prosecution, which affects their case in toto.
Challenge in the appeal was to the companyrectness of the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Madurai directing acquittal of the present appellant.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the appeal filed by the State.
PW2 is the younger brother of the deceased.
