JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Criminal Appeal has been filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the order of conviction passed by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam in S.C.No.107 of 2011, dated 08.08.2011 convicting the first appellant under Section 304(ii) of IPC and imposed a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment, second appellant for offence under Section 324 of IPC and imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment of three months and the third appellant under Section 323 of IPC and imposed the sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment.)

1. The convicted accused viz., A1, A2 & A4 are the appellants herein.

2. This Criminal Appeal has been filed against the order of conviction passed in S.C.No.107 of 2011, by the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam, dated 08.08.2014, wherein, the learned Judge has convicted A1 for the offence under Section 304(ii) of IPC and imposed sentence to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment; convicted A2 for the offence under Section 324 of IPC and imposed sentence to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment; convicted A4 for the offence under Section 323 of IPC and imposed sentence to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

3(a). The case of the prosecution is that Inspector of Police, Aragandanallur Police Station has laid a final report alleging that the deceased Kasinathan, his family members, accused 1 to 5 are the residents of Ottampatu village. The father of the deceased viz., Vellaya Kounder, A3/Manickam and one Annamalai are brothers. All the three had orally partitioned the site. A3 and his son viz., A2 were enjoying the entire site by using it as a cattle shed and by putting garbage. Whileso, due to misunderstanding among brothers, the deceased asked A2 & A3 to remove the garbage from the site and he wanted to survey the land and lay survey stones for the respective shares.

3(b). On 04.04.2010 the deceased Kasinathan laid a fence for his share of property and A1 to A3 removed the fence, during the evening. At about 8.00 p.m., the deceased returned home and saw the fence are removed and hence, he scolded A3 and his family members for removal of fence.

3(c). A1 to A8 unlawful assembled with deadly weapons and in pursuance of the common object A1 scolded the deceased in filthy language and assaulted him on his head with wooden pestle, A5 assaulted him on his left hip with iron rod, A6 assaulted him with wooden log on his chest and back, A7 assaulted him with wooden log on his chest and thereby caused injuries to him.

4. On seeing the witnesses viz., PW1/Babu, PW2/Sasikala and PW3/Boopathy, who came for rescue, A2 assaulted PW1 with cycle chain on his head, A3 assaulted PW1 with wooden long on his right hand and caused simple injury; A4 assaulted PW2 with wooden log and had caused injury on her right shoulder. A8 pulled the tuft of PW3 and assaulted her with hands and caused simple injury.

5. Hence, A1 alleged to have committed the offence under Sections 148, 294(b) and 302 of IPC; A2 alleged to have committed offence under Sections 148, 324 & 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC; A3 & A4 alleged to have committed offence under Sections 148, 323 & 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC; A5 alleged to have committed offence under Section 148, 324 & 302 of IPC read with Section 149 of IPC; A6 & A7 alleged to have committed offence under Sections 148, 323 & 302 read with Section 149 of IPC; A8 alleged to have committed offence under Sections 147, 341, 323 & 302 read with Section 149 of IPC.

6. Thereafter, the case was taken up on file as S.C.No.107 of 2011, before the learned I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam. After the trial, the learned Sessions Judge has found A1 guilty for the offence under Sections 304(ii) of IPC and sentenced him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment; found A2 guilty for the offence under Section 325 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment; found A4 guilty f