JUDGMENT

Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar, J-This is an appeal by the original accused No.1 Pandian @ Veerapaqdian from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras convicting him under Section 120-B read with Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case briefly is as follows

2. One Kunju @ Govindraj who was the paternal uncle of PW 1 Raja and was related to accused Nos. 1 and 2 had contested the Presidentship of" the village Panchayat in 1986. His opponent was PW 4 Dhanamani. PW 4 won the election. Deceased No.1 had supported PW 4 offering him financial aid and support while accused No.1-the present appellant, was a strong supporter of Kunju @ Govindraj. There was there fore enmity between accused No.1 and PW 1 on the one side and deceased No.1 and the others on the other side. Accused No.1 was a Panchayat Union Contractor The bills which were due to him were not passed for payment and he presumed that this was due at the instance of PW 4 and his men. The stopping of payment led to a quarrel between accused No. 1 and PW 4 on 23.4.1986. In respect of this incident PW 4 had preferred a complaint at the police station.

3. On 25.4.1986 there was yet another clash at 8.30 p.m. between the group supporting PW 4 and the group owing allegiance to accused No. 1. In this occurrence accused No.1, his father and his younger brother sustained injuries and were admitted to Government Hospital, Chidambaram. A criminal complaint has also been lodged in this connection. Two days thereafter on 27.4.1986 there was another incident when PW 1 and others proceeded to the house of Rajalaxmi the wife of deceased No.1 and abused her in" vulgar language in respect of which also a criminal complaint has been lodged.

4. It is the prosecution case that some time thereafter the accused No.1 told PW 1 that deceased No.1 Kodandaswami was behind the attack on him, his father and his younger brother and, therefore deceased NO.1 should riot beall owed to live any more Two or three days prior to the insident accused No.1 escorted PW 1 to the tea shop of PW 13 situated in Melamoongiladi. Accused No.1 asked PW 1 to fetch accused No.2 from Chavadikuppam. Accused No.2 is also related to accused No.1 and PW 1. Accordingly PW 1 fetched accused No.2 by a bus from his village which is about 40 kilometres away at about 5.30 p.m. in the evening the two accused and PW 1 came to the tea shop of PW 13. Accused No.1 told accused No.2 that deceased No.1 was responsible for attacking him, his father and his brother and hence he should be killed. Accused No.1 also told accused No.2 that every night deceased No.1 returns to his native village from Bhawanagiri and accused No.2 could hit deceased No.1 by driving his car over him so that it would appear as if deceased No.1 had lost his life in a motor accident. Accused No.2 said that he did not know deceased No.1 and would not be able to identify him whereupon PW 1 said that he would accompany accused No.2 in the car and would identify deceased No.1.

5. On 22.5.1985 accordingly in the evening at about 7.00/7.30 p.m. PW 1 went to the workshop of accused No.2. Thereafter both of them took Car No. TNJ-69 filled it with petrol and reached Bhavanagiri. The car was halted near Chamundeeswari Temple. PW 1 left the car to ascertain whether deceased NO.1 was still available in the market place or had left for his village. He ascertained that the deceased was in the vicinity and he had started his journey towards his village, deceased no. 1 was accompanied by deceased Nos. 2 and 3 and PW 3 when the car came upon these persons. There were, thus, four persons walking along the road Accused No.2 told PW 1 that he will not beable .to hit deceased No.1 atone. He will have to hit all the persons. PW 1, however, directed him to do so. Accordingly the accused No.2 drove his car and hit deceased Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as PW 3. The car drove away thereafter. The ca