IMPORTANT POINT
Where from evidence it is clear that there was a sudden quarrel regarding the fencing between the prosecution party and the accused, during the course of which, unexpectedly, the deceased who intervened, sustained one injury and died instantaneously, the accused could be made liable for an offence under Sections 304, part 1 of Indian Penal Code and not for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

JUDGMENT

T.S. Arunachalam, J.- Al Chinnathambi and A2 Solaiyan are the appellants. They are brothers. They along with Vellaisamy, who was arrayed as A3,were tried in S.C. 2 of 1982 on the file of the Court of Sessions, Pudukottai on 9 charges. Apart from these three accused, a juvenile named Periasamy is also said to be involved in this Crime. The juvenile was tried separately in S.C.3 of 1982 and acquitted by the Trial Court.

2. The charges framed are as follows:

The first charge was against Al for an offence under Section 302 of the lndian Penal Code for having caused the death of Kaliammal, the 16 - year old daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 2 by cutting her with an Aruval, M.O.1 on her left shoulder, resulting in instantaneous death. The second charge was against A.2 and A3 under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code relating to charge No.1 mentioned above. The third charge was against A.1 for having caused hurt to P.W.1, with a dangerous weapon, punishable under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code. The fourth charge was framed against A2and A.3 referable to charge No.3, with the aid of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The 5th charge was for an offence under. Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code framed against A.2 for having caused hurt to P.W.1. The 6th charge was against A2 and A3 with the aid of Section 34 of the. Indian Penal Code referable to charge No.5. The 7th charge was framed against A.3 for an offence under Section 325 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused grievous hurt to P.W.1. The 8th charge was framed under Section 325 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against A.1 and A.2 referable to charge No.7 aforementioned. The last charge was against A.2 for an offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused hurt to P.W.1. This charge appears to be redundant in view of charge No;5 already framed against A.2 for having caused hurt to P.W.1.

3. The learned trial Judge acquitted the concerned accused under charges 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8. A.1 was found guilty under the first charge for an offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. Under charge 3 A.1 was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Under charge 5 A.2 was convicted under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused hurt to P.W.1 and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. Under charge 9, A.2 was convicted under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code for having caused hurt to P.W.1 and sentenced to three months’ rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. The prosecution case is this: P.W.1, Nagalingam, along with his wife P.W.2., daughter, the deceased and other members of the family was residing at Ilampatti village. Behind his house, one Shanmugam Chettiar of Nachandhupatti has lands. Those lands have been taken on lease by A.3. A3. had put a fencing' on the ridge of the lands of Shanmugam Chettiar. The fencing was not relished by P.W.1, who, on 25-9-1981, the date of occurrence, directed A.3 to remove the fencing, which was not acceded to by the latter. This incident is said to have taken place at about noon. The quarrel between A.3 and P.W.1 was pacified by P.W.5. It is stated that A3 vowed vengeance against P.W.1 and left the scene. It is in this background that the occurrence is said to have taken place at about 8.30 p.m., opposite to the house of P.W.1. At or about 8.30 p.m. A.1, armed with an aruval, A2, armed with a stick, the juvenile Periasamy, armed with an aruval and A.3, armed with a stick, came and stood before the house of P.W.1. Kaliammal, the deceased, who is the daughter of P.Ws. 1 and 2, on seeing the accused standing with weapons, questioned their presence and she also brought M.O.3, the hurricane lantern and kept it on the pial of the house. The accused are said to have abused Kaliammal. P.W.1, Nagalingam questione