The admissibility of evidence under S.27 of the Evidence Act and the application of S.34 IPC in establishing common intention were central legal principles established in the judgment.

Headnote:
offerees - Criminal Law - S.302, S.324, S.34 IPC - The court discussed the evidence related to the discovery of M.Os.1 and 2 pursuant to the statement made by accused 1 and 2, and the admissibility of such discovery under S.27 of the Evidence Act. The court also considered the motive for the attack, the offences committed by each accused, and confirmed the conviction and sentences under S.302 read with S.34 IPC and S.324 read with S.34 IPC.
Fact of the Case:

The accused were convicted for offences punishable under S.302 and 324 IPC read with S.34 IPC for causing the death of two individuals and inflicting hurt on another. The prosecution's case involved a dispute over the construction of a shed, which led to a violent altercation resulting in fatalities and injuries.
Finding of the Court:

The court analyzed the evidence related to the discovery of weapons, the motive for the attack, and the specific acts committed by each accused. It confirmed the conviction and sentences under S.302 read with S.34 IPC and S.324 read with S.34 IPC.
Issues: The admissibility of the discovery of weapons under S.27 of the Evidence Act, the motive for the attack, and the specific offences committed by each accused were key issues before the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the discovery of weapons pursuant to the statement made by accused 1 and 2 was inadmissible under S.27 of the Evidence Act due to the lack of clarity regarding which accused gave the information first. The court also found that the accused shared a common intention to cause death and hurt, leading to their conviction under S.302 read with S.34 IPC and S.324 read with S.34 IPC.
Final Decision: The court confirmed the conviction and sentences of all the accused under S.302 read with S.34 IPC and S.324 read with S.34 IPC, and imposed a sentence of imprisonment for life on the 4th accused under S.302 read with S.34 IPC.

Judgment :-

1. The accused who were convicted for offerees punishable under S.302 and 324 IPC read with S.34 IPC by the Court of Sessions, Trivandrum, in Sessions Case No. 45 of 1984, are the appellants. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced accused 1 to 3 to undergo imprisonment for life under S.302 read with S.34 IPC and the 4th accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 18 months under S.324 read with S.34 IPC. Even though the learned Sessions Judge found that the 4th accused was also guilty of the offence punishable under S.302 read with S.34 IPC no sentence was passed against him on the ground that evidence was wanting to hold that he had committed any overt act in respect of the two deceased, Sebastian Pillai and Yagappan.

2. Crl. Appeal 513 of 1987 was filed by the State against the omission to pass sentence on the 4th accused, though the lower court found that he was guilty of offence punishable under S.302 I.P.C. read with S.34 I.P.C.

2. The prosecution case may be summarised as follows:

The first accused was residing in a house towards the east of the house of Mary Stella, daughter of deceased Sebastian Pillai and P.W.1. P.W.1 and deceased Sebastian Pillai were residing in a house opposite to that of Mary Stella on the northern side of the road. The road proceeds from Pozhiyoor to Neeredi in Poyipallivilakam of Pozhiyoor desom in Kulathoor Village. In front of the house of P.W.1, the road runs from west to east. On the east of the house of Mary Stella, 1st accused was residing. Some four or five months prior to the date of incident, P.W.1 and deceased Sebastian Pillai constructed a shed towards south of the house of Mary Stella. The first and the 2nd accused objected to the said construction. The first accused and the 2nd accused constructed another shed very close to the only door of the shed constructed by PW 1 and deceased Sebastian Pillai. On the morning of 1-5-1983 at 7 a.m P.W.1 and the deceased Sebastian Pillai demolished the shed put up by accused 1 and 2. At 10 a.m. on the same day while P.W 1 was standing on the road in front of her house, the accused came towards her. The first accused was armed with a spade (M.O.2), the 2nd accused with an iron rod (M.O.1) and the 3rd and 4th accused with stems of oars (M.Os. 3 and 4) and attacked P W.1. At that time P.W.2 and deceased Sebastian Pillai were drying their fishing nets in the open space near the house of Mary Stella. Heating the cries of P.W.1 her husband Sebastian Pillai and PW2 came running to the scene. The 1st accused inflicted a cut on the head of Sebastian Pillai with spade. The 2nd accused beat en the head of Sebastian Pillai with iron rod and the 3rd accused beat on the head of Sebastian Pillai with a wooden plank. The 4th accused beat en the body of Sebastian Pillai with the stem of oar. Thereupon P.W.2 cried oat saying 'Oh my uncle is killed'. Then the second accused beat on the heed of P.W 2 with the iron rod. The fourth accused beat en the back of P.W.2 with a stem of oar and the 3rd accused beat on the left shoulder of P.W.2 with the wooden plank. Yagappan, P.W.2, P.W.3 and P.W.9 came running. Yagappan asked the accused why they were killing the poor people. Thereupon the 2nd accused beat with the iron rod on his head and the 3rd accused and the 4th accused beat Yagappan with wooden plank which struck on his head. On receiving the blow Yagappan fell on the ground. The accused ran towards east with their weapons Yagappan was taken to his house by his wife and son. P.Ws.I and 2 and Sebastian Pillai were taken to the Govt. Hospital at Parassala. P.W.1 was admitted in that hospital. P.W.4 Assistant Surgeon attached to that hospital examined Sebastian Pillai and issued Ext. P2 wound certificate. PW 4 examined Sebastian Pillai and issued Ext. P2 wound certificate. He also examined PW.2 and PW.1 and issued Ext. P5 wound certificates in respect of injuries found on them. He gave Ext. P3 intimation about Sebastian Pillai and PW.2 and Ext. P6 intimation abo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1987 Supreme(Ker) 579

The admissibility of evidence under S.27 of the Evidence Act and the application of S.34 IPC in establishing common intention were central legal principles established in the judgment.

Cases Referred (1)