P.C. The Trial Court examined fourteen prosecution witnesses PWs.1 to 14 and marked Exts.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 19th July, 2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Criminal Appeal Nos.389 575 of 2003 together with Criminal Revision Nos.201 and 1389 of 2002, whereby the High Court has dismissed both the appeals and both the revisions, companyfirming the judgment delivered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in S.C. Nos.39 of 1998 and 148 of 1999.
The Inspector, PW 14 PW 18 in S.C. No.148/1999 took up the investigation, visited the place of occurrence, prepared observation Mahazar and rough sketch and recovered material objects, held inquest, examined the witnesses, recorded their statements and filed the charge sheet.
P1 in S.C. No.148/1999 before the Village Administrative Officer PW 3 who in turn preferred a companyplaint before PW 13 in S.C. No.148/1999 .
Both these cases ended in acquittal.
P1 to P21 and M.Os.1 to 13 in S.C. No.39 of 1998.
P10 Ext.
As against accused Manikandan and Hari Harikrishnan, the case was split up as S.C. No.148 of 1999 wherein PWs.1 to 18 were examined and Exts.
P.1 to 23 and M.Os.1 to 13 were marked.
It was alleged that due to the said motive when Gopalakrishnan along with his wife Vijaya, was proceeding on his bicycle, Murugesan A 1 , Senthil Kumar A 2 , Rajendran A 4 and Manikandan A 3 assaulted Gopal Gopalakrishnan with Aruval, causing instantaneous death.
They are Murugesan A 1 , Senthil Kumar A 2 , Manikandan A 3 , Rajendran A 4 , Hari Harikrishnan A 5 and Kathir Kathiravan A 6 .
It is the case of the prosecution that accused Hari Harikrishnan and accused Kathir Kathiravan were keeping vigil at the place of occurrence while the other accused were companymitting the crime.
A separate trial was companyducted in S.C. No.39 of 1998 as against A 1, A 2, A 4 and A 6.
A 1s brother Kaliyamurthy was murdered due to previous enmity by Paneerselvam and two others.
The High Court after companysidering the facts of the case and after appreciating the evidence which was adduced before the Trial Court, came to the companyclusion that the prosecution case suffers from defects and held that the learned Sessions Judges have companye to definite companyclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt and affirmed the reasoning given by the Additional Sessions Judge and refused to interfere with the said decisions.
The wife of the deceased preferred two criminal revisions Criminal R.C. Nos.201 and 1819 of 2002 against the aforesaid judgments of the Trial Court.
The Trial Court in both the matters held that the prosecution companyld number prove the charges leveled against the accused and accordingly acquitted all the accused.
A companyplaint was lodged by wife of the deceased, being Ext.
According to the prosecution, accused Murugesan had assaulted the deceased Gopalakrishnan with Aruval on the right hand, accused Senthil Kumar had assaulted the deceased Gopalakrishnan with Aruval on the left ankle and right thigh, causing grievous injuries, accused Manikandan had assaulted the deceased Gopalakrishnan with Aruval on the right shoulder and accused Rajendran had assaulted the deceased Gopalakrishnan on the right ankle and right thigh.
So Senthil Kumar A 2 and Manikandan A 1 who are the sons of Kaliyamurthy, had grudge against the deceased Gopalakrishnan as he had preferred a companyplaint against them in respect of an incident which took place on 21.10.1992.
Since Manikandan A 3 and Hari Harikrishnan A 5 were absconding at the time of trial, their case was separated and they were subsequently secured and tried in S.C. No.148 of 1999.
As recorded in the impugned judgment of the High Court, there are six accused in S.C. No.39 of 1998 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam.
Hence, appeals were filed by the State before the High Court.
Hence, the State preferred criminal appeals, being Criminal Appeal No.389 of 2003 against the judgment in S.C. No.148 of 1999 and Criminal Appeal No.575 of 2003 against S.C. No.39 of 1998.
There is numberovert act attributed against accused Hari Harikrishnan and accused Kathir Kathiravan.
We have heard the learned companynsel for the parties at length.
