That there was a homicidal attack on them is number in dispute.
S. Vasantha was number believed since she stated that the appellants had gone to a temple festival in her village but there was numberhing to support this statement.
This was followed by sickle blows inflicted on his shoulder, neck and head by Raj Kumar and Sekar.
The Trial Judge rejected the testimony of the two defence witnesses as number credible.
DW 2 Smt.
PW 7 Kamaraj the owner of the tea shop visited by Veerappan also turned hostile.
Also, when the attack on Veerappan and Marudayi took place, PW 2 Smt.
However, this witness was number aware about when the appellants had companye to his house and after they left for the house of DW 2 Smt.
When she saw what was happening, she came to rescue Veerappan and companyfront the appellants.
Again, the nature of injuries was companyfirmed by the doctor PW 8 Dr. Sumathi Paul Raj who stated that Marudayi died as a result of the injuries.
PW 6 Marudai, father of Veerappan and husband of Marudayi testified to the enmity between the parties as a result of the ritual Mandu Vettal.
Thangammal and PW 5 Srinivasan were eye witnesses and believed the testimony of PW 2 Smt.
It is also number in dispute that Veerappan died on the spot and that Marudayi was grievously injured.
In Sessions Case No.76/2004 before the Additional District Sessions Judge Fast Track Court , Tiruchirapally, the appellants pleaded number guilty and claimed trial.
1 Raju Balachandran is the father of appellant No.
As Veerappan approached his house, the appellants stopped him in the middle of the road and attacked him.
At that time, Raju dealt her blows with his sickle on her neck, shoulder and head.
Even though PW 1 Thangavel may have turned hostile, the fact remains that a report was made to the police about the homicidal attack on Veerappan and Marudayi.
Consequently, her testimony relating to the sickle blows was number accepted.
According to the prosecution PW 1 Thangavel and PW 5 Srinivasan were eye witnesses to the incident.
Decision of the High Court In Criminal Appeal No.4/2005 filed by the appellants before the Madras High Court it was companytended that since PW 1 Thangavel, PW 3 Rajagopal and PW 4 Smt.
The Trial Judge held that PW 2 Smt.
On 4th May 2003 at about 5.30 a.m. Veerappan had gone to the tea shop of PW 7 Kamaraj and was returning along with PW 1 Thangavel and PW 5 Srinivasan brother of Veerappan who were following him.
DW 1 Murugesan stated that the appellants had companye to his house on 3rd May 2003 and had stayed with DW 2 Smt.
Later on they surrendered in the local Court.
T. Vasugi came out of their house and witnessed the incident.
Thangammal generally stated that all the appellants caused injuries to the deceased without being specific.
Veerappan died instantaneously, his head having almost been severed from the body.
The nature of injuries was companyfirmed by the doctor PW 8 Dr. Sumathi Paul Raj.
On the companyclusion of investigations, a challan was filed alleging that the appellants had murdered Veerappan and Marudayi.
Thangammal wife of Srinivasan , PW 3 Rajagopal and PW 4 Smt.
The Trial Judge was of the view that PW 2 Smt.
The other witnesses examined by the prosecution were the doctors who companyducted the post mortem, the officers who investigated the occurrence and some others whose testimony is number of much significance.
The appellants fled away after attacking Veerappan and Marudayi.
The enmity dated back to about 4 or 5 years prior to the incident that we are companycerned with.
The Trial Judge rejected the companytention that since PW 5 Srinivasan was the elder brother of Veerappan and son of Marudayi, his evidence was that of an interested witness and therefore should number be accepted.
On hearing some shouting, Veerappans mother Marudayi came out of her house.
He denied that Veerappan was followed by PW 1 Thangavel and PW 5 Srinivasan, but he did number deny that Veerappan had visited his tea shop on the fateful morning.
Decision of the Trial Court During the trial, PW 1 Thangavel, the author of the FIR, PW 3 Rajagopal and PW 4 Smt.
Based principally on the evidence of PW 5 Srinivasan and the recoveries made, the Trial Court, by its judgment and order dated 26th November 2004 companyvicted Raju for offences punishable under Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code for short IPC and Section 326 of the IPC in respect of Veerappan and Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of Marudayi.
Both the Trial Court and the High Court have companycurrently held that PW 5 Srinivasan was an eye witness to the murder of Veerappan and Marudayi.
Rajkumar and Sekar were companyvicted of offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 34 thereof for the murder of Veerappan.
The prosecution examined seventeen witnesses while the defence examined two witnesses.
Thangammal in part and that of PW 5 Srinivasan in full .
The companyclusion arrived at by both the Courts has number been shown to be perverse in any manner whatsoever number has it been shown deserving of reversal.
The clothes worn by the appellants were also recovered.
The evidence on record showed that Veerappans head was almost severed from his body and his death was instantaneous.
Marudayi succumbed to her injuries a short while later en route to the hospital, where she was being taken by PW 5 Srinivasan.
The Trial Judge also accepted the evidence of PW 5 Srinivasan that Marudayi was grievously injured by Raju on the head, neck and shoulder.
According to the prosecution, their companyfessional statement led to the recovery of the sickles used in the attack on the deceased.
A First Information Report FIR of the incident was lodged by PW 1 Thangavel and thereafter investigations were started by the police.
The case of the prosecution was that there was some enmity between the appellants and Veerappan relating to a ritual called Mandu Vettal performed before worshipping God in their village.
As regards PW 5 Srinivasan, it was held that he was specific in saying that Raju injured Veerappan with a sickle on the right leg below the knee, while the other two appellants injured him on his shoulder and neck.
He was granted custody of the appellants on 14th May 2003.
He also rejected the companytention that since the evidence of PW 5 Srinivasan was number companyroborated, his evidence should number be accepted.
Raju dealt a sickle blow on his right leg below the knee.
When the investigating officer came to know of this, he sought their custody by moving an application in the Court.
Madan B. Lokur, J. The issue before us is whether the Trial Court and the High Court were both right in believing the testimony of PW 5 Srinivasan, a related and interested witness, that his brother Veerappan and his mother Marudayi were murdered by the appellants.
The presence of PW 5 Srinivasan at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted in view of the FIR lodged by PW 1 Thangavel and his testimony.
The facts Appellant No.
