It is stated that on 09.01.2000 which was in the Tamil month of Markazhi, the bull belonging to the appellant, who belonged to the place called Thiruvalarchipatti participated in the function.
The case of the prosecution as projected before the Court below was that Murugesan PW 1 and Sankar deceased were brothers and were native of a place called Sooriyur.
However, it is stated that the deceased did number survive and breathed his last around 2 p.m. Based on the information given by PW 1, a case was registered by sub Inspector Ethiraj PW 9 as crime No.20/2000 in the Navalpattu Police Station for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302, Indian Penal Code for short IPC .
However, in the companyrse of the examination PW 2 and 3 turned hostile and PW 1 alone supported the case of the prosecution.
While the appellant inflicted cut injuries in the left arm of the deceased with the weapon called aruval, the other accused stated to have inflicted certain other injuries on the head, leg and the buttocks of the deceased.
On sustaining the injuries, the deceased stated to have fallen down.
He prepared the observation Mahazar in the presence of witnesses and also prepared a model sketch Exhibit P 6.
We have heard Mr. Nagendra Rai, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Balaji, learned companynsel for the respondent State.
The deceased stated to have companytrolled the said bull and the appellant was stated to have been aggrieved by the so called heroism of the deceased which resulted in alleged threat to the deceased.
He also stated to have examined other witnesses including PW 1.
PW 1 appeared to have companysoled the deceased by stating that they can report the companyduct of the appellant and others to the local Panchayat.
PW 1 to 3 were examined as eye witnesses.
As is the practice in their village, in the month of Markazhi Tamil month , there used to be a game called Manju Virattu also called as Jalli Kattu in which bulls brought from other villages would be companyfined in an enclosure and then the bulls would be allowed to run, throwing a challenge to the youngsters to tame them and whosoever companytrols such bulls, used to get a reward in the function.
On 05.02.2000, he enquired other witnesses and on 06.02.2000 at 4 p.m. Sakthivel A 6 was arrested and based on the admissible portion of his statement five aruvals were stated to have been recovered from the thorn bush at 5.30 p.m. near a place called Koonavayil adjacent to Sulingu which were recovered in the presence of witnesses under Exhibit P 20.
The post mortem was companyducted by Dr. Karthikeyan PW 11 and the post mortem certificate was marked as Exhibit P 15.
Twelve days prior to the murder of the deceased, six persons including the appellant stated to have quarreled and also assaulted the deceased which, according to PW 1 was reported by the deceased to him PW 1 .
On 04.02.2000 at 10.30 a.m., when the deceased along with PW 1 was waiting at the bus stand which place was known as Manthai, the appellant and other accused chased the deceased and caught hold of the deceased at Mamundi temple.
The post mortem report disclosed as many as five injuries and the doctor opined that the deceased appeared to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to injury Nos.4 and 5.
He was carried by PW 1 to his residence and from there, after arranging taxi from nearby town called Thiruvaramboor shifted him to Trichy Government Hospital around 01.30 p.m. The deceased was examined by Dr. Saminathan PW 8 to whom the deceased informed that he was assaulted by six known persons.
All the accused were tried before the trial Court wherein the prosecution examined PWs 1 to 12, marked Exhibit P 1 to 20 and M.O.s 1 to While M.O. 1 to 5 were the weapons, namely, aruval, M.O.6 was blood stained polyester lungi, M.O. 7 was blood stained Kasi towel, M.O.8 was blood stained sand, M.O. 9 was unstained sand and M.O. 10 was yellow and blue companyour mixed lungi seized from the deceased.
After the 313 questioning in which all the accused denied their participation in the crime, the trial companyrt analysed the materials placed before it and reached a companyclusion that except A 1 and A 6, guilt was number made out as against others, namely, A 2, A 3, A 4 and A 5.
The statements of witnesses were also recorded by him and then he went to the Government hospital, Trichy and prepared an inquest report Exhibit P 18.
In the appeal preferred by the appellant A 1 and A 6, the High Court set aside the companyviction and sentence imposed on A 6 and companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant A 1 herein.
Inspector Kailasanathan PW 12 stated to have simultaneously gone to the place of occurrence.
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. This appeal, at the instance of accused No.1 is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 12.12.2008 in Criminal Appeal 1089 of 2001 by which the High Court while companyfirming the companyviction and sentence imposed on appellant accused No.1 A 1 , set aside the companyviction and sentence as against accused 6 A 6 and acquitted him of the charges.
