Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.N. PRAKASH, G. JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.
Panneerselvam - Appellant
Versus
The Inspector of Police, Velayuthampalayam Police Station, Karur - Respondent
Crl. A(MD) Nos.288 of 2010 and 273 of 2019
Decided On : 17-03-2020
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code Section 304 (II) – Default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month – Criminal appeals are filed against the judgment and order passed in S.C. on the file of the Sessions Court, Karur – trial Court, by the said judgment and order, acquitted the accused 1 and 3 to 5/respondents 1 and 3 to 5, however, convicted Panneerselvam (A-2) of the offence under Section 304 (II) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Challenging the conviction and sentence, Panneerselvam (A-2) is before this Court in Crl.A.(MD) and challenging the acquittal of accused 1 and 3 to 5/respondents 1 and 3 to 5, Palaniammal –Held, From a perusal of entire oral and documentary evidence along with the documents produced by the accused, it has become clear that the 2nd accused questioned the deceased Periyasamy for erecting the fence as seen from Ex.D-2, the certified copy of FIR registered at the instance of the 2nd accused, that resulted in quarrel between the 2nd accused and deceased Periyasamy, Periyasamy enraged over the objection raised by the 2nd accused attacked the 2nd accused with bill hook and caused injury to the 2nd accused – Accused took the black bubble stick attacked the deceased, the deceased fell down and the bill hook slipped from his hands, the 2nd accused should have picked the bill hook and caused cut injury in the right hand by severing the wrist from the hands – It is true that there is no direct evidence available to prove the above inference by this Court – Available evidence and circumstances would force this Court to infer the above fact – Crl.A.(MD) is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
P.N. PRAKASH, J.
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 30.07.2010 in S.C.No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Karur.
PRAYER: Criminal Appeal is filed under Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment dated 30.07.2010 in S.C.No.2 of 2010 on the file of the Sessions Judge, Karur.
These criminal appeals are filed against the judgment and order dated 30.07.2010 passed in S.C.No.2/2010 on the file of the Sessions Court, Karur. The trial Court, by the said judgment and order, acquitted the accused 1 and 3 to 5/respondents 1 and 3 to 5, however, convicted Panneerselvam (A-2) of the offence under Section 304 (II) IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. Challenging the conviction and sentence, Panneerselvam (A-2) is before this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.288/2010 and challenging the acquittal of accused 1 and 3 to 5/respondents 1 and 3 to 5, Palaniammal (P.W.-1) is before this Court in Crl.A.(MD) No.273/2019.
2. The prosecution story, in a nutshell, is as follows:
2.2 Panneerselvam (A-2) is the son of Kaliappan (A-1) and Lakshmi (A-5) and grandson of Periyasamy (A-3) and Pappayee (A-4).
2.3 The family of the deceased and the family of the accused were related by blood, inasmuch as the father of the deceased and the grandfather of Periyasamy (A-3) were brothers. Both families were owning properties adjacent to each other and after partition, they were enjoying their respective shares.
2.4 However, there were disputes between the two families with regard to a cart-track that was running across the land of the deceased party from the land of the accused party. The deceased party were objecting to the usage of the said cart-track by the accused party, on account of which, there were frequent quarrels between them.
2.5 While so, on 17.06.2009 (Wednesday), around 7.00 a.m., the deceased, along with his wife Palaniammal (P.W.-1) and daughter-in-law Punitha (P.W.-2), was taking steps to fence the cart-track so as to prevent the family members of the accused and others from using it as a pathway, on coming to know of which, it is alleged that the accused party came to the place of occurrence and questioned the deceased, as a sequel of which, an altercation ensued, in which, the accused party belaboured the deceased with a scimitar (a short, curved sword with an edge on the convex side), resulting in the death of the deceased at the place of occurrence.
3. On the complaint (Ex.P-1) given by Palaniammal (P.W.-1), Karunakaran, (P.W.-11), Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No. 340/2009 under Section 302 IPC on 17.06.2009 at 8.30 hrs. against Kaliappan (A-1) and Panneerselvam (A-2) and prepared the printed FIR (Ex.P.-17), which reached the jurisdictional Magistrate on 17.06.2009 at 11.50 a.m., as could be seen from the endorsement thereon.
4. The Investigating Officer (P.W.-11) went to the place of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar (Ex.P-5) and rough sketch (Ex.P-18) in the presence of witnesses Sivasubramanian (P.W.-4) and Subramanian (not examined). Inquest was conducted at the place of occurrence and inquest report was marked as Ex.P-19. The body was sent to the Government Hospital, Velayuthampalayam, for postmortem, where, Dr. Sivaraman (P.W.-5) conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased and issued the postmortem certificate (Ex.P-8).
5. Dr. Sivaraman (P.W.-5), in his evidence as well in the postmortem certificate (Ex.P-8), has noted as follows:
1. Right hand near completely severed at the level of wrist joint exposing ulna radius bones. Blood vessels nerves muscles severed only toe of skin attached with forea
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
