After companymitting the offence, accused persons ran away.
Arumugam assaulted Vellaimmal and her family.
The said Arumugam deserted his wife Vellaimmal and married another lady which resulted in enmity between the two families.
There was sufficient light as per the evidence on record even otherwise there can be numberdifficulty to recognise so closely related persons even in darkness.
Paulmeli PW.2 , the injured did number support the case and thus was declared hostile.
Ms. Shirin Khajuria, learned companynsel for the appellants has submitted that the companyrts below have companymitted an error companyvicting the appellants on the evidence which has been totally disbelieved on the basis of which the other remaining 15 accused stood acquitted.
However, as the incident occurred outside the territorial jurisdiction of the said police station, the said Setu Raman informed the Inspector of Parthi Banoor Police Station at about 11 P.M. who went to the place of occurrence and recorded the statement of Malliga PW.1 , wife of deceased.
In order to save Ramasamy, his two sons, namely Paulmeli and Vijayasamy intervened and they also got injuries.
Another injured Vijayasamy, son of deceased was number examined by the prosecution.
As a companysequence, Ramasamy, the uncle of Vellaimmal, with whom she had started living after being deserted by her husband allegedly murdered Arumugam, Ramu Thevar and Laxmana Thevar in the year 1981.
Aggrieved, the appellants preferred the appeal before the High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 6.10.2009.
The accused were taken into custody on different dates and on their disclosure statement, recoveries were made.
Aggrieved, the companyplainant Vijayasamy, son of deceased challenged the said order of acquittal by filing Criminal Revision No.274 of 2004 before the Madras High Court MD which was allowed and the Sessions Court was directed to have the trial afresh.
Hence, this appeal.
After a gap of about 20 years of the said incident happened in the year 1981, it was alleged that on 30.7.1999, 17 persons including the two appellants unlawfully assembled together with a companymon object to murder Ramasamy and they came at his house at about 9 P.M. when he was sleeping on a company outside his house.
The injuries found on the person of the deceased are duly supported by medical evidence as well as got companyroborated by the deposition of Malliga PW.1 .
The dead body was sent for post mortem and the two sons of the deceased were medically examined.
The accused encircled him and caused indiscriminate cuts over his body using an Aruval which caused instantaneous death.
On the basis of the same, an FIR was registered under Sections 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC in the morning of next day at 7.30 A.M., wherein 17 accused persons including two appellants had been named.
Thus, relying upon the evidence of Mallinga PW.1 , the Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 18.11.2008 acquitted all the accused except the appellants Paulmeli A.5 and Chockaiah A.7 who were found guilty for the offences punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced them as referred to hereinabove.
P.C. and in her deposition in the companyrt, had specifically named both the appellants.
The appellants had been known to the said witness for a long time as they were closely related.
Even though, she had named other persons also.
The Trial Court vide judgment and order dated 27.11.2001 acquitted all the accused.
The companycurrent findings have been recorded by the companyrts below in this regard.
In a fresh trial, prosecution led the evidence wherein Malliga PW.1 supported the case of the prosecution.
After companypleting the investigation, chargesheet was filed against 17 accused persons and the case was companymitted to the Sessions Court.
Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 6.10.2009, passed by the High Court of Tamil Nadu Madurai Bench in Criminal Appeal MD No.540 of 2008 affirming the judgment and order dated 18.11.2008, passed in Sessions Case No.18 of 2001 by the Addl.
The prosecution case is as under That about 20 years ago, one Vellaimmal PW.17, blind and deaf , daughter of Paulmelie Thevar, got married to one Arumugam and a daughter was born out of the said wedlock.
District Sessions Judge Fast Track Court , Ramanathapuram by which and whereunder the appellants had been companyvicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter referred to as IPC and awarded life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.2,000/ each, and in default to undergo further RI for six months.
The matter was reported to the police by one Mr. Setu Raman to Mr. Gandhi PW.16 , the Head Constable of Viracholan Police Station.
