Conviction under Section 307 I.P.C. requires clear evidence of intent to cause death, which was not established in this case.

JUDGMENT

The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed in S.C.No.100 of 2013, dated 24.08.2017, on the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur.

2. According to the prosecution, Palaniammal, residing in Periyakollappatti Village with her family, was attacked by the accused on 05.05. 2012, at around 6:30 a.m. The incident stemmed from a previous altercation between her son Mathankumar and the first accused's son Madasamy on 04.05.2012. During the attack, accused 1 and 2 restrained Palaniammal, while 3rd accused struck her head with an iron rod and 4th accused hit her back with a wooden log. Upon receiving information, Palaniammal's husband arrived at the scene and took her to the hospital. The Inspector of Police, Irukkankudi Police Station, filed a final report against the accused under Sections 341 and 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. The learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Sattur has taken the case on file in P.R.C.NO.17 of 2013 and furnished the copies of records under Section 207 Cr.P.C., on free of costs. The learned Magistrate, finding that the offence under Section 307 I.P.C., is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, after compliance under Section 208 and 209 Cr.P.C., had committed the case to the file of the Principal Sessions Court, Srivilliputhur and the same was taken on file in S.C.No.100 of 2013 and thereafter the same was made over to the Court of the Additional Sessions Court, Sivakasai.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, on hearing both sides and on perusal of the records, being satisfied that there existed a prima facie case against the accused, framed charges under Section 307 r/w 34 I.P.C., as against the second accused and under Section 307 I.P.C., as against the accused Nos.3 and 4 and the same were read over and explained to the accused and on being questioned, they denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. Since the first accused had died, the case as against him was ordered to be abated. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the file of the Fast Track Mahila Court, Srivilliputhur. The prosecution in order to prove their case examined 13 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.13 and exhibited 8 documents as Exs.P.1 to P.8.

5. The case of the prosecution emerging from the evidence adduced by the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(i) P.W.1 – Chinnamasanam, the defacto complainant, resides in Periyakollappatti with his family, including his wife P.W.5 – Palaniammal, daughter P.W.2 – Muthuselvi, and son P.W.3 – Mathankumar. On 04.05.2012, around 5:00 p.m., P.W.3 – Mathankumar and Madasamy, son of the first accused, engaged in a kabaddi game at the CSI school playground, which escalated into a wordy altercation and physical fight. P.W.3's parents advised him not to pursue the matter. The next day, P.W.1 went to Sattur for work. At around 6:30 a.m., the accused arrived at P.W.1's house, where accused 1 and 2 restrained P.W.5, shouting she would be killed. 3rd Accused attacked P.W.5's head with an iron rod, and 4th accused hit her back with a wooden log, rendering her unconscious. P.W.2 immediately informed P.W.1, who returned home and took the injured P.W.5 to Sattur Government Hospital.

(ii) P.W.11 – Dr.Selvakumar was on duty at about 08.30a.m., on 05.05.2012. P.W.5 was brought for treatment by her husband informing that she was attacked by five known persons with wood log, iron rods and stones. He referred her to Madurai Government Rajaji Hospital for further treatment. Since P.W.5 did not receive treatment at Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, P.W. 11 refuse