J U D G M E N T

This Criminal Appeal is filed against conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court holding this appellant guilt of offence under Section 304(1) of I.P.C (two counts) and sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I for each counts and also to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- for each count, in default 6 months R.I for each counts. Convicted for offence under Section 307 of I.P.C (2 counts) sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I for each counts and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for each counts, in default to undergo 3 months R.I each count. The substantive sentence was ordered to run concurrently.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the defacto complainant and the victims belongs to Kollakottai hamlet near Pappireddipatti. The Appellant Opputtu @ Chinnavan and his son-in-law Anumanthan (A2 – acquitted by the trial Court) belongs to Mangalakottai hamlet. There was dispute between the residence of these two hamlets in respect of the TASMAC Shop located in Mangalakottai Village. The persons belonging to Kollakottai hamlet were opposing the TASMAC shop located at Mangalakottai hamlet. While so, a month before the incident, when Rajiv (Deceased), Megan (deceased) and Ayyasamy (injured) who are residents of Kollakottai hamlet went to Mangalakottai hamlet and protested for establishment of TASMAC shop, the appellant and his son-in-law questioned them, why they come to their Village and making protest and threatened them dire consequence.

3. While so, on 05.11.2010, when the defacto complaint Saravanan of Kollakottai hamlet went to the grocery shop of Periyannan located near the Mangalakottai bus stop, Rajiv, his brother Megan and Ayyasamy also came to the shop for purchasing groceries. At that time, the appellant and his son-in-law Anumanthan teased them demanding liquor to celebrate Diwali, for which, Rajiv, Mangan, Ayyasamy, retarded saying when they are opposing the liquor shop in the Village, how dare they demand liquor from them. Anumanthan (A2) spit on Rajiv and moved away threatening them that he and his father-in-law will finish them one day.

4. Soon thereafter, while Rajiv, Megan, Ayyasamy and Saravanan, (the defacto complainant) returning back to their hamlet, Anumanthan (A2) and Opputtu @ Chinnavan (the appellant) went ahead of them and waiting, A2 came and caught Rajiv. This appellant took knife and stabbed Rajiv on his Left Chest.

When Megan rushed to save his brother Rajiv, the appellant stabbed Megan on his chest. Both Rajiv and Megan fell down. Ayyasamy, who tried to save Megan from further attack was also brutally stabbed by the appellant repeated over his chest, shoulder and left hand. The defacto complainant, who tried to prevent the appellant from further causing injury, was also attacked by the appellant with knife. Hearing the commotion, the Villagers rushed to the spot and on seeing them, both the accused fled. Rajiv died on the spot. Megan and Ayyasamy were taken to hospital. At the hospital, the doctor declared Megan brought dead and admitted Ayyasamy in the Intensive Care Unit. The defacto complainant, who sustained injury on his left fore hand, took first aid and came to the Police Station and gave the complaint (Ex.P.1).

5. Based on the complaint (Ex.P.1), a case in Crime No.346 of 2010, under Sections 341, 302, 307 of I.P.C was registered and taken up for investigation. Based on the final report and on committal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, framed charges under Sections 302 of I.P.C (2 counts) and 307 of I.P.C (2 counts) against A1 Opputtu @ Chinnavan (the appellant herein). Framed charges under Sections 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C (2 counts) and 307 r/w 34 of I.P.C (2 counts) against Anumanthan (A2).

6. After completion of trial, on appreciating the evidence of prosecution, the trial Court held that A1 was 60 years old at the time of occurrence and the quarrel occurred on the day of Diwali when the deceased as well as the accused were in inebriated mood. Therefore, considering the nature and circumstances of