Aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the High Court, the sole appellant is before us.
There was a land dispute between Michaelraj and the accused persons on account of which there was enmity between them.
The matter came up before the Trial Court, which after going through the evidence provided by the sole eyewitness PW 3, companycluded that the case of prosecution is proved beyond doubt and thereby companyvicted the accused under Sections 148, 149, 302 341 of IPC.
This occurrence was witnessed by John Paul PW 1 and Anthoni Raj PW 3 .
PW 12 filed an application seeking police custody from the Court.
On police custody, he obtained companyfession from the appellant, which led to the recovery of weapons, which were sent for chemical examination.
Thereafter, a portion of the property was executed in favor of the appellant.
Thereafter, PW 14 took up the matter from PW 12 and investigated the case further and filed a charge sheet for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.
Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court, the accused preferred an appeal before the Madras High Court.
Subsequently, a case was registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code IPC .
In the meantime, PW 1 went to the Police Station and filed an FIR to PW 11.
Originally, the grandmother of the deceased Michaelraj executed a settlement deed in favor of Michaelraj which was subsequently cancelled.
On 14.12.1997, Michaelraj died at the hospital and thereafter the inspector of police PW 12 altered the case into one under Section 302 of the IPC.
The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 16.3.2006, partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused persons, companyvicted them under Section 304 Part II of IPC and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for five years, stating that the doctor who treated the deceased was number examined and the documents regarding the nature of treatment were number produced.
Therefore, the appellant filed a suit against the deceased and his relatives.
On 10.12.1997 at around 730 p.m., when Michaelraj along with his friend John Paul was returning from the house of his father in law, the appellant and other accused persons attacked him with deadly weapons.
Despite the settlement deed, the appellant claimed that his possession of property was disturbed by the deceased and his relatives.
The appellant further claimed that even though interim orders were passed in the suit, Michaelraj and his relatives did number allow the appellant to enjoy his possession of the property.
The deceased sustained injuries and was taken to the hospital in a serious companydition.
Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J. These appeals have been filed by accused persons against the judgment and order dated 16.3.2006 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal No.1540 of 2002 by which the High Court has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.
