Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS AT MADURAI BENCH
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
Mayandi and Others – Appellants
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Crl. Appeal (MD) No. 206 of 2008, Crl. M.P. No. 1 of 2008
Decided On : 14-08-2019
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 324, 326 and 307 - Grievous Hurt - Complainant party cut branches of trees reclined within their land - Injury on the head - Attempt tot Murder - Appeal against conviction - Alleging that there was a land dispute and previous enmity between accused 1 and 2 and victim party for more than five years; that some branches of Karuvel trees grows in lands of accused 1 and 2 reclined in de facto complainant's land; that when defacto complainant requested accused to cut branches, they refused to cut same, wordy quarrel arose between first accused and defacto complainant and second accused causes cut injury on head of PW-1 with an Aruval - Held, Court view that conviction laid by learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge in respect of charge under Section 307 IPC against second appellant herein/A.2 is not sustainable - This Court is of considered view that PW-1 and PW-2 are making an exaggeration of version of incident by blowing out of proposition and accordingly, conviction and sentence passed by learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge for offence under Section 307 IPC against A.2/second appellant herein is held to be not proved in the manner known to law and portion of evidence by PWs. 1 and 2 in support of the said charge is found to be artificial and exaggerated - Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
1. The convicted accused viz. A1 and A2 are the appellants herein and they have preferred this criminal appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul, dated 10.04.2008.
2. After hearing either side and considering the evidence on record, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, by judgment dated 10.04.2008, in S.C. No. 95 of 2004, convicted and sentenced both accused Nos. 1 and 2/appellants herein as follows:
| Accused | Provision under which convicted | Sentence |
| Mayandi (A1) | Section 326 IPC | Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. |
| Section 307 IPC | Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. | |
| Sankar @ Jey Sankar (A2) | Section 324 IPC | Three years rigorous imprisonment. |
| Section 326 IPC | Seven years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. | |
| Section 307 IPC | Ten years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment. |
The learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul, ordered to run the above sentences concurrently.
3. The respondent police has filed Charge Sheet in Cr. No. 405 of 2003 alleging that there was a land dispute and previous enmity between accused 1 and 2 and the victim party for more than five years; that some branches of Karuvel trees grows in the lands of accused 1 and 2 reclined in the de facto complainant's land; that when the defacto complainant requested the accused to cut the branches, they refused to cut the same. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 15.08.2003 when the de facto complainant party cut the branches of trees reclined within their land, wordy quarrel arose between the first accused and the defacto complainant and the second accused causes cut injury on the head of PW-1 with an Aruval; that the first accused also cut the right elbow, left chest and left wrist of PW-2 with an Aruval and when PW-3 attempted to prevent the same, the second accused cut the left fingers, except thumb of PW-3 and caused injury and thereby, both A.1 and A.2 had committed the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 307 IPC.
4. The matter was taken on file as P.R.C. No. 36 of 2003 and re-numbered as S.C. No. 95 of 2004. Subsequently, made over to the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul. After trial, the first accused was charged for the offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC and the second accused was charged for the offences under Sections 324, 326 and 307 IPC.
5. In order to prove the case of the prosecution, the prosecution examined PW-1 to PW-15 and marked Exs. P1 to P13 and also produced M.O.1 and M0.2-Aruvals. On the side of the defence, the Accident Register of the first accused was marked as Ex. D1 through the Investigating Officer PW-15.
6. On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned Additional Assistant Sessions Judge, Dindigul, held that charges against accused 1 and 2 are proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, laid the conviction and awarded sentence as already stated supra.
7. Aggrieved against the said judgment of conviction and sentence, accused 1 and 2 have preferred this criminal appeal before this Court. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, the first accused namely, Mayandi, died on 17.05.2009 and the same was recorded based upon the memo along with the death certificate filed by the learned counsel for the appellants herein/accused 1 and 2 and accordingly, this criminal appeal stands abated as against the first accused/first appellant herein. Thus, the scope of the appeal is now confined to the charges framed against A.2, viz. fo
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
