Back
ARUL – Appellant
Versus
THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE – Respondent
CRL A 309/2011
BAIL SLIP
The Petitioners/ Accused 1.Arul, S/o.Natarajan, 2.Elango
S/o.Natarajan were directed to be released on bail as per order
of this court dated 07/06/2011 and made in MP No. 1/2011
in Crl A.309/2011 on the file of this Court.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 23.03.2018
DELIVERED ON: 20.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
Criminal Appeal No.309 of 2011
1.Arul
2.Elango
...Appellants/Accused 1 & 2
Vs
The State represented by:
Inspector of Police,
Harur Police Station,
Dharmapuri District,
Crime No.804/04.
...Respondent/Complainant
Appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, against the judgment passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court) Dharmapuri in S.C.No.29 of
2010, dated 26.04.2011 convicting the Appellants under Section
326 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo 7 years Rigorous
Imprisonment each and also pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each i/d to
undergo 6 months Simple Imprisonment each and they also found
guilty u/s. 352 of I.P.C. and are ordered to pay a fine of
Rs.500/- each i/d to undergo 2 weeks simple imprisonment each to
set aside the same and acquit them.
For Appellants :
Mr.M.G.Udhayasankar
for M/s.S.Shanthakumari
For Respondent :
Mrs.T.P.Savitha
Government Advocate (Crl.Side)
JUDGMENT
This Appeal is being directed against the Judgment of
conviction sentencing the appellants’ for offences punishable
under Sections 326 and 307 of IPC, to undergo Rigorous
Imprisonment for a period of 7 years and also to pay a fine of
Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo Six months Simple Imprisonment,
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
for offence under section 352 of IPC ordered to pay a fine of
Rs. 500/-, in default to undergo two weeks Simple Imprisonment.
The present appeal is filed by the accused 1 and 2 in S.C.No.29
of 2010. The 3rd accused in the above appeal is acquitted from
all the charges.
2.According to prosecution case there was previous enmity
between the families of the appellants / accused herein and
defacto complainant. The said enmity arose out of pathway
dispute.
3.The appellants and accused No.3 in the above crime number
who happened to be brothers with common intention of causing
hurt to defacto complainant and his family on 06.10.2004
attacked the defacto complainant and his family.
4.Out of said attack the defacto complainant family
suffered injuries. Defacto complainant’s son namely Senthil
Kumar sustained severe head injury and died on 23.04.2005.
5.According to defacto complainant the head injury causing
Senthil Kumar’s death was out of a blow from A2 by an iron
spade. Out of investigation over the defacto complaint’s
statement made under Section 161(3) of Cr.P.C. the F.I.R. in
Crime No.803 of 2004 dated 06.10.2004 came to be registered
under Sections 341, 324, 323, and 506 (ii) of IPC as against the
accused.
6.In the meantime, T.Senthil Kumar died on 23.04.2005 was
hospitalized in National Institute of Mental Health and Nero
Science Hospital, Bangalore.
7.Accordingly Charges came to be laid under Sections 326,
302 r/w 34, 352 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against the 1st Accused namely
Arul and Sections 302, 326 r/w 34, 352 r/w 34 of I.P.C. against
the 2nd Accused namely Ilango and Sections 326 r/w 34, 302 r/w
34, and 352 of I.P.C. against the 3rd Accused Kumaran.
8.To establish Charges of causing Grievous hurt with a
deadly weapon under Section 326, Assault under Section 352 of
I.P.C. and Murder with common intention, prosecution examined 15
witnesses and marked 15 Exhibits, and M.O-1, M.O-2, the spade
and stick said to have involved in the offence were produced.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
9.Defending the prosecution version on the side of
appellant one Ilango was examined as DW-1 and Exs-D1 to D5 were
marked. That apart the Cou
