IMPORTANT POINT
Fatal injury can be caused even by outer side of Sickle.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

1. This appeal filed by the accused-appellant is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Madras dated 19.12.2008, whereby conviction of the appellant no. 1 (A1) under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC for short) has been upheld. Since appellant No. 2 (A2-Rajendran) has died during the pendency of this appeal, the appeal shall stand abated in so far as appellant no. 2 is concerned.

2. The facts of the case are that Chinnappa Gounder (deceased) was the neighbour of the first accused. They both had adjacent landed properties and shared a common boundary. There was a common well on this boundary which was also divided between the appellant no. 1 and the deceased. A dividing wall was there in the well.

3. The appellant had initiated some civil proceedings and appear to have obtained an order permitting accused no. 1 to repair the well. On 17.07.2000, Karuppanna Gounder, his son-in-law Rajendran, his wife Thangaiyee, his son Mayakrishnan, and some others were removing sand from their portion of the well when PW-6 son of the deceased Chinnappa Gounder objected to this action since they were dropping the sand on the passage used by the deceased and his family.

4. On this a quarrel ensued and there was a verbal altercation between the parties. The first accused-Karuppanna Gounder attacked Chinnappa Gounder with a Sammatti (hammer), and A2, his son-in-law used a Koduval (sickle) to attack Chinnappa Gounder on the head. A4 and A5 attacked the deceased with iron rods and hit him on the head while the other accused attacked the deceased with stones and sticks. When PW-6 tried to intervene he was also attacked by the accused. Thereafter, Chinnappa Gounder was taken to the hospital where he died. After completing all investigations, the police filed a report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the appellant no. 1 and 12 other accused. They pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, the trial court found A1-Karuppanna Gounder guilty of charge of murder and he was awarded life imprisonment. A2-Rajendran was also held guilty under Section 302, 307, 324 of IPC and was awarded life imprisonment for the offence of murder. All the other accused who were charged for various offences including murder were acquitted by the trial court.

5. The High Court upheld the sentence of the A1appellant herein, but as far A2 son-in-law, Rajendran was concerned, it was held that the injuries caused on the skull of the deceased Chinnappa Gounder were fatal. However, as per the medical opinion this injury could not have been caused with Koduval (sickle). Since the injury was a lacerated wound, the High Court held that it could not have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon. The court further held that there was no attempt to murder by A2 but he caused simple injuries to 4 persons i.e. PW-6, PW-9, PW-10 and PW-11 and awarded 3 years rigorous imprisonment.

6. We have heard Mr. S. Nagamuthu, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant no. 1. The main issue is whether the injury caused by the appellant-A1 can be said to be the cause of death of the deceased. There are many eyewitnesses, including PW-1, A. Senthil Kumar. Since the depositions made by all of them are similar, we are only referring to the statement of PW-1.

7. According to this witness, after the verbal altercation took place, the appellant-A1 and his son Kandasamy returned to their house but came back to the place of occurrence soon along with their son-in-law Rajendran. It is alleged that the appellant-A1 chased the deceased with Sammatti (hammer) in his hand and gave a blow with the hammer on the back side of the head of the deceased. Here we may mention that there is some variation in the translation because at some places it is mentioned as back of the neck and in some places as back of the head. Be that as it may, the injury allegedly caused to Chinnappa Gounder by the appellant no. 1 was at the back of the he