Back
2003 Supreme(Mad) 1972
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.BANUMATHI
Kannan - Appellant
Versus
State through Inspector of Police - Respondents
Criminal Appeals No.128 and 406 of 2001
Decided On : 10 December 2003
The judgment establishes the principle that the presence of a common intention can be inferred from the totality of circumstances, including the nature of the attack and the consistency of witness evidence.
Headnote:
Common Intention - Criminal Law - Sections 302, 307, 34 IPC - The judgment discusses the application of Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The court analyzes the evidence and infirmities in witness testimonies, and concludes that the attack on the deceased and the witness was in furtherance of a common intention.
Fact of the Case:
The deceased and the witness were attacked by the accused in a longstanding dispute over a pathway. The accused were convicted for offenses under Sections 302 and 307 read with 34 IPC.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the evidence of the witness to be consistent and reliable, despite challenges to witness testimonies. It concluded that the attack was in furtherance of a common intention, justifying the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
Issues: Challenges to witness testimonies, infirmities in evidence, and the presence of a common intention.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the consistency and reliability of the witness's evidence, the presence of a longstanding dispute, and the nature of the attack to establish the common intention of the accused.
Final Decision: The Appeals were dismissed, confirming the conviction and sentence of the appellants.
M.Karpagavinayagam, J.
The Appellants are A1 to A4. A1 has filed Appeal in C.A.No.406 of 2001 and A2 to A4 have filed separate appeal in C.A.No.128 of 2001. A1 to A4 were convicted for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34 and 307 read with 34 IPC and for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC. They were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/= each for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and for the offence under Section 307 read with 34 IPC, they were sentenced to undergo five years R.I.and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/= each.
2. The factual matrix in brief is as follows:-
"(a) The deceased Ganesan is the elder brother of P.W.1 Kulasekara Pandian. Accused 1 to 4 are brothers. Both parties were residing in the same village by name Anumanthapatti. There was a longstanding dispute between the accused party and the deceased party regarding the pathway which is situate in front of the house of P.W.1. From the year 1979, there were frequent quarrels between them. Resultantly, the criminal cases were filed against each party and the same were pending in the Judicial Magistrate Court, Uthamapalayam. P.W.3 Aruna is the wife of the deceased.
(b) The fateful occurrence took place on 18.08.1999. At about 11.30 am, the deceased Ganesan and P.W.2 Ondi purchased fertilizer for the sugarcane field of Ganesan, the deceased. P.W.1 also accompanied them. They came back to Anumanthapatti village and after parking their cycles near the field, the deceased Ganesan and P.W.1 took the fertilizer bags to the field. When they were nearing the field, A1 to A4, who were waiting in the corner of the field, suddenly appeared in the scene. A1 Baskaran stabbed with the spear, M.O.1 below the left chest of Ganesan, the deceased. A2 Kannan with the knife, M.O.2 stabbed on the left abdomen of Ganesan. On receipt of these injuries, Ganesan fell down and fainted. On seeing P.W.1 standing nearby shouted at the deceased, A3 Nagaraj asked other accused to kill P.W.1 also. So saying, A3 with the patta knife, M.O.3 gave a cut on the head of P.W.1. When it was warded off, he sustained injuries on his right fore arm. A4 Kamaraj also gave a cut with the patta knife M.O.4 on the right index finger. Thereupon, A3 and A4 gave indiscriminate cuts on the head of P.W.1. P.W.2 Ondi, who accompanied them, on seeing the ghastly strike, shouted. The accused ran away from the scene and escaped with the weapons. P.W.1 went near the deceased and found him dead. This occurrence was witnessed by P.W.3, the wife of the deceased. After informing her that he would go to police station to give complaint, P.W.1 went to Uthamapalayam Police Station and lodged the complaint, Ex.P-1 to the Sub Inspector of Police, P.W.9.
P.W.9 Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint at about 12.30 pm. He registered the case on the basis of Ex.P-1 and prepared the first information report Ex.P-19. The case was registered under Sections 307 and 302 IPC. P.W.9 sent P.W.1 with a medical memo to the Government Hospital for treatment. He also sent message to the senior officials.
(d) On 18.08.1999 at 12.45 pm, Dr.Premakumari, P.W.5 examined P.W.1 and found nine injuries. She issued wound certificate Ex.P-12. She admitted him as inpatient. Ultimately, he was discharged on 21.09.1999.
(e) In the meantime, P.W.10 - Inspector of Police, on receipt of the message, took up investigation and went to the scene of occurrence. He prepared observation mahazar Ex.P-2 and rough sketch Ex.P-20. He conducted inquest over the dead body of Ganesan. The Inquest Report is Ex.P-21. He examined P.Ws.2 and 3 and others. Then, he sent the body for post mortem with a requisition.
(f) On 18.08.1999, P.W.6 Dr.Subburaj, on receipt of the requisition, conducted post mortem. He found two external injuries, one is on the left side chest and another is on the left side lower costal margin. On internal examination, he found a probe introduces in injury No.1, which passes thr
