Ocular evidence supported by medical reports prevails over minor discrepancies, reaffirming convictions for murder and related offences.

JUDGMENT :

G. JAYACHANDRAN, R. POORNIMA, JJ.

The appellants 1 and 2 are son and father. The trial Court found them guilty for offence under Section 34 1 IPC and sentenced them to undergo one month simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default, to undergo 15 days simple imprisonment. Also, as against A1, the court found him guilty for offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment. Similarly, A2 was found guilty for offence under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced him to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo 3 months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The above said judgment rendered in S.C.No.85 of 2014 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Sivagangai is under challenge in the present appeal. The grounds of appeal reads as under:-

The judgement of the trial Court is based only on presumption, surmise conjuncture. The Court below failed to appreciate the contradictions in respect of material facts. The testimony of PW1 and PW2 ought to have been rejected by the trial Court since they both are interested witness and there is no corroboration to their ocular evidence. The contradiction between the testimony of PW1, PW2 and PW3, particularly, in respect of scene of occurrence and the role alleged to have been played by the accused persons, though properly highlighted by the defence, were not considered by the Court below. The motive as well as the meeting of mind between the two accused to attract offence under section 34 of IPC not established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. While so, the conviction of the accused without sound reasoning and evidence beyond pale of doubt is liable to be set aside and the appellants have to be set acquitted and set free.

The case of the prosecution:

3. Kalyanasundaram (the deceased) and Rajangam (the second accused) are blood brothers. The second accused was demanding share in the 35 cents of land held by his brother Kalyanasundaram. Since it was the self acquired property of Kalyanasundaram, he refused to share the property with his brother, the second accused. Hence, there was animosity between them. On 20.09.2011 at about 3.00 pm Kalyanasundaram(deceased) and his son Ganesan (PW1) went to their field and returning back to the home. By that time in search of the deceased and PW1, the son-in-law of PW-1 by name Senthilkumar (PW2) came near the Tirupachethi Thidal and all three joined and returning back. At about 6.15 pm, while the deceased was walking ahead of PW-1 and PW-2 about 200 feet away followed by PW1 and PW2 conversing with each other, A1 and A2 came out from the sugarcane field restrained Kalyanasundaram. A2 caught hold of the hands of Kalyanasundaram and demanded to give share in the property and threatened Kalayasundaram if he refuse to share the property, he will be done to death. However, Kalyanasundaram refused to give share in the property, Immediately A2 told his son A1 “we need not leave this old man alive any further, hack him”. Thereafter A1 attacked Kalyanasundaram on his head with the bill hook. Kalyanasundaram on sustaining injury fell to ground. A2 again told A1 “he should not be left alive, chop his head”. A-1 again attacked Kalayasundaram on the neck. Thereafter A-1 and A-2 ran away. Kalyanasundaram died on the spot.

4. The crime was reported by PW1 to the respondent police through a written complaint- Ex.P1. The FIR was registered in Thirupachethi Police Station Crime No.235 of 2011 at 18.45 hours by t