Madras High Court
Mariappan vs State Represented By The on 11 December, 2009
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Regupathi, R.Subbiah
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 11/12/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH Crl.A(MD)No.772 of 2002 1.Mariappan 2.Kondalraj ... Appellants vs State represented by the Inspector of Police, Thattapparai Police Station, Thoothukudi District. Crime No.181/1998 ... Respondent Prayer Appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C., against the conviction and sentence passed by the I Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi made in S.C.No.470 of 1999 dated 13.05.2002. !For Appellants ... Mr.A.W.D.Thilak ^For Respondent ... Mr.Issac Manuel, Additional Public Prosecutor. :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBBIAH,J.) The appellants are the accused who took their trial in S.C.No.470/1998 on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Thoothukudi on the charge that both the accused with a common intention to eliminate the deceased, A-1 attacked the deceased with stick on the head and A-2 inflicted injuries to the deceased with a knife indiscriminately all over his body resulting in his death.
In order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution had examined P.Ws.1 to 18, marked Exs.P.1 to 15 and produced M.Os.1 to 14. The learned trial Judge, on conclusion of the trial, by Judgment dated 13.05.2002, found both the accused guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Challenging the verdict of the Court below, the accused have come up with the present appeal.
2.The prosecution case, as put forth by its witnesses, is concisely narrated below:-
a)P.Ws.1 and 2 are the wife and son of the deceased respectively.A1 and A2 are brothers. P.W.8, Veerachinnammal is their sister, who was a widow. The accused and the deceased are closely related. They were all residing in 1st Street of Azhakesapuram, Tuticorin in the adjacent houses in the same compound.
The deceased was working as a security man in a godown within the SIPCOT Company. The accused were also residing in the adjacent house of the deceased in the same compound. The deceased during the period of occurrence was working as a security man in the SIPCOT godown.
One month prior to the occurrence the deceased is stated to have teased P.W.8, the sister of the appellant with indecent words telling her that the deceased would hereinafter live with P.W.8 as her husband thereby expressing his carnal desire. On account of this there was a simultaneous feeling with bad blood between the appellants and the accused. The accused wherever he used to meet the deceased they were staring and threatening him. While the situation stood thus, on 7.9.2008 a village panchayat was held in respect of this matter and the panchayatdars delivered their verdict advising both the parties to go in compromise. The accused were dissatisfied with the panchayat decision and left from the place staring glance at the deceased having boiling blood. While the situation stood thus, on 7.9.2008 at 5 P.M. when the deceased left to his house to attend his security duty at the godown. Both the accused on seeing the deceased leaving to his house transacted among themselves by expressing their feelings that only if the deceased is finished off they would be in peace and saying so they went out of the compound following the deceased. P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, overhearing their conversation, called her son P.W.2 to go to the place of the working spot of the deceased and to take him back. P.W.2 took a cycle from a nearby shop and carrying his mother as a pillion rider went towards the godown and called his father, the deceased, to come back to the house. While P.Ws.1 and 2 were demanding the deceased to return back A1 and A2, who were nurturing their emotional feelings, suddenly came to the scene of occurrence, on seeing the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and the deceased at the place of occurrence, which is situated at the Medathur Railway Gate, rushed towards the deceased. At that time A1 was in possession of a bamboo stick and A2 was in possession of a knife. Both of them simultaneously attacked the deceased with the weapons in their hands in that A1 beat the deceased on his head with the bamboo stick, M.O.8. On receipt of the beatings delivered by A1 the deceased fell on his back. Immediately A2 bounced on his with the knife, M.O.4, and repeatedly stabbed on the various parts of the front side of the body of the deceased viz., the stomach, chest and neck indiscriminately shouting 'how dare he was to make such infatuated words' thereby making aspersions on the conduct of P.W.8. When P.Ws.1 and 2 raised an alarm the accused intimidated and threatened them and thereafter fled away from the spot.
b)P.W.1, on seeing that the deceased lying dead at the spot itself, immediately proceeded to Thattaparai Police Station along with her son (P.W.2) and complained about the occurrence to the Head Constable, who reduced the oral complaint given by P.W.1 into writing under Ex.P.1 and registered a case in Crime No.181/98 for an offence punishable under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC. Ex.P.13 is the printed First Information Report, P.W.14, Head Constable received the Express FIR at 8 p.m. and despatched the same to the Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Tuticorin at 6 a.m. and forwarded the copies of the First Information Report to the other higher officials.
c)P.W.17, the Investigating Officer, on receipt of the copy of the Express FIR on 07.09.1998 at 8.45 p.m., reached the scene of occurrence at 9 p.m., prepared an Observation Mahazar and a Rough Sketch, Exs.P.9 and 14 respectively and recovered the blood stained earth, sample earth and M.Os.1 to 3 and 8 to 10 in the presence of witnesses under mahazars attested by P.W.13. Thereafter, P.W.17 conducted inquest over the body of the deceased in the presence of witnesses. Ex.P.15 is the inquest report. Thereafter, P.W.17, forwarded the dead body to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin for conducting the Post Mortem through P.W.15, Head Constable along with his requisition/Ex.P.3.
d)P.W.11, the Medical Officer, conducted the post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased on 08.09.1998 at 8 a.m., and issued the post-mortem Certificate Ex.P.4, wherein, he noticed the following:-
"External Injuries:
I 1)An incised wound 2cm x 1/2cm x 4 cm centre of chest 2) An incised wound 2cm x . cm x 4 cm near 1 wound right side 3)An incised wound 2 cm x . cm x 5 cm left side wound No.1 4)A wound 2 cm x .cm x 6 cm left to the 1st wound 5)An incised wound 2 cm x 1/2cm x 4 cm right side of the above wound 6)An incised wound left side to the 5th wound 7)Incised wound 2cm x . cm x 4 cm left side to 6th wound
8)Incised wound 2 cm x . cm x 4 cm near 7th wound 9)Incised wound 2cm x 1/2cm x4cm near right 8th wound 10)incised wound 2cm x/12cmx4cm near 9th wound
11)Incised wound 2cmx1/2cmx4cm near 10th wound II1)Incised wound left neck 2 cmx1/2cm x20cm
2)Incised wound 2cmx1/2cmx1cm right side of 1st wound
3)Incised wound 2cmx1/2cmx1cm right side of 2nd wound
4)Incised wound 2cmx1/2cmx1 cm right side of 3rd wound III.An abrasion 3cm x 2cm left Elbow IV.Laceration 2cm x1/2cmx left chest V.An incised wound 2cmx1/2cmx10cm VI.Laceration 2 cmx1cm left umbilicus region VII.Abrasion 2cm x1/2cm right shoulder VIII.Incised wound (NC) x 1cmx2cm left palm Exploration of neck and abdomen Thorax all the carotid vessels were cut connecting with 1st 4th wound Heart incised wound 2cm x 1/2cmx5cm left heart connecting with II wound of (1) Liver incised wound 2cm x1cmx5cm left lobe of liver connecting with injury Vth wound All organs pale Hyoid bone intact".
The doctor opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage and due to injuries sustained by him.
e)After the Postmortem, the clothes of the deceased (M.Os.5-7 and 13) were handed over to P.W.15, Head Constable. Thereafter, on 08.09.1998, at 5 a.m., P.W.17, arrested both the accused in the presence of P.W.13, Village Administrative Officer and one Periyanayagam. On arrest, the second accused made a voluntary confession statement, the admissible portion thereof being Ex.P.13, and pursuant to the said statement, M.Os.4, 11 to 13 came to be recovered. Since P.W.17 found an injury on the hand of the second accused, he was sent to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin with a memo for treatment. Thereafter, both the accused were produced before the Judicial Magistrate and remanded to the judicial custody.
f)The recovered material objects were despatched to the Court along with a requisition under Ex.P.5 to send the same for forensic examination. Exs.P.7 and 8 are chemical analysis and serological report respectively.
g)P.W.18, who succeeded P.W.17, took up the case for further investigation, from 17.11.1994 and, after examination of the witnesses and receiving medical and forensic opinions, concluded the investigation and laid the final report on 23.11.1998 against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 506(ii), 294(b) read with 34 IPC.
h)When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., regarding the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution, they denied their complicity with the crime and pleaded innocence. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in by the defence.
i)Learned Trial Judge, after examining the materials placed and considering the arguments advanced by both sides, found the accused guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, convicted and sentenced them as stated supra. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal before this Court.
3.Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 would go to show that Ex.P.1, i.e., the statement given by P.W.1 might not have come into existence in the way in which the case has been projected by the prosecution. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that according to the prosecution, immediately after the occurrence, P.W.1 had proceeded to Thattaparai Police Station along with her son P.W.2 and lodged a complaint; whereas in her cross examination, P.W.1 stated that when she was sent for by Tuticorin South Police Station, she went to the Tuticorin Police Station along with P.W.2 where she had seen the second accused at the police station where the respondent police had obtained a complaint from her.
4.Further, by inviting the attention of this Court to the evidence of P.W.3, (daughter of P.W.1) the learned counsel for the appellants contended that P.W.3, has also stated in her evidence that she knew that a complaint was given by P.Ws.1 and 2 at the Tuticorin South Police Station earlier to the present complaint i.e., Ex.P.1. Therefore, by relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there should have been an earlier complaint given by P.W.1 which was registered at Thattaparai Police Station. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 3, it could be inferred that the prosecution has suppressed the earlier complaint and the present complaint should have been prepared after the arrest of A-2 with concocted version.
5.According to P.W.17, Investigating Officer, he arrested the accused on the next day viz., 08.09.1998 at 5 a.m. and returned to the police station at 10 a.m. But the evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that A-2 was present at South Tuticorin Police Station when she was called by the Police. The said piece of evidence of P.W.1 would go to show that the second accused was already present in the police station when P.W.1 went to the police station to lodge a complaint. According to P.W.13, the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.17, has arrested both the accused on 08.09.1998 at 5 a.m. and pursuant to their confession, M.O.4, Knife was recovered under mahazar Ex.P.12 which was attested by P.W.13. But according to P.W.1, when she had gone to the Police Station, the weapon said to have been used by the second accused was shown to her. Hence, the arrest of the accused on 08.09.1998 at 5 a.m. in the presence of P.W.13 appears to be a false story. The statement made by P.W.1 in her evidence that he had seen the presence of A-2 at Tuticorin South Police Station and the police had shown the weapon used by A-2 viz., knife to her would give rise to a grave doubt about the arrest of the accused on 08.09.1998 at 5 a.m. i.e. the next day to the occurrence. According to the prosecution case, the weapon was recovered pursuant to the confession of A-2. But P.W.13, Village Administrative Officer had stated that the confession was recorded from A-1.
6.In the FIR, it has been stated that the occurrence took place one furlong north to railway gate but in the evidence of P.W.1, it has been stated by her that the occurrence took place near the Madathur Railway Station. But in the rough sketch/Ex.P.14 prepared by P.W.17, it has been shown as if the occurrence took place one furlong west to the railway gate and not on the northern direction as stated by P.W.1, in Ex.P.1. This contradiction would go to show that the presence of P.Ws.1 and 2 at the scene of occurrence is highly doubtful.
7.Further, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there was an inordinate delay in handing over the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate. Though the FIR was registered at 7 p.m. on 07.09.1998, the same was handed over to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin on the next day viz., 08.09.1998 only at 6 a.m., and no proper explanation is given for this delay. In fact, this delay in handing over the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate would raise a grave doubt that the FIR should have been prepared only on the next day morning and despatched to the Judicial Magistrate.
8.The learned counsel for the appellants by inviting the attention of this Court to the Post mortem certificate/Ex.P.4 contended that there are 10 external injuries including the incised and lacerated injuries but no-where it has been stated there was a stab injury. Had the knife been used by A-2, as stated by the prosecution, there should have been a stab injury, but not even, a single stab injury is mentioned in the post mortem certificate. The non-mentioning of a stab injury in the postmortem certificate Ex.P.4 would create a doubt in the case of the prosecution, since according to the prosecution, the second accused had used a knife in the occurrence.
9.Further, P.W.10, Medical Officer, who examined A-2, on 08.09.1998 at 7.15 p.m. in his evidence stated that when he examined A-2, he had seen a sutured wound in his hand. But there is not even a whisper about the injury and in what circumstance that injury was caused in the same transaction in Ex.P.1.
10.Further, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that P.W.3, daughter of P.W.1 in her evidence stated that P.W.7, the sister of the accused was residing at Kovilpatti but the deceased was residing at Tuticorin. The motive for the incident according to the prosecution is that since the deceased teased the sister of the accused i.e., P.W.7, the accused got infuriated when P.W.7 was residing at a distant place the motive put forth by the prosecution witnesses that the deceased was murdered by the accused since he teased P.W.7 is highly doubtful.
11.Thus by pointing out the contradictions found in the prosecution witnesses, the learned counsel for the appellants contended that the contradictions found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses would give rise to a doubt as to whether the occurrence would have taken place as put forth by the prosecution. Under such circumstances, by giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, the order of conviction and sentence passed against the accused are liable to be set aside.
12.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the date of occurrence is 07.09.1998 at 5.45 p.m. and thereafter, immediately, a complaint was registered at 7 p.m.. Since it was night, the next day morning at 6 a.m. the FIR was handed over to the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin without any delay. Therefore, there was no delay in sending the FIR to the Court. It is further submitted that no suggestion was put to P.W.2 that she was not an eye witness to the occurrence. Similarly, no suggestion was put to P.W.11, the Post Mortem Doctor that the injuries inflicted on the body of the deceased cannot be caused by a knife viz., M.O.4. In the absence of challenge to the evidence of prosecution witnesses, the question of doubting the prosecution case does not arise. In fact, P.W.1 had clearly stated in her evidence that A-2 stabbed the deceased indiscriminately with knife, during the said transaction, A-2 has also sustained injury in his hands. The fact that P.W.10/Medical Officer has found sutured injuries in the hands of A-2 would strongly support the case of the prosecution that the occurrence should have been taken place in the manner as put forth by the prosecution. P.W.4, neighbour of the deceased had also clearly spoken about the motive for the occurrence. Further, Observation Mahazor and Rough Sketch prepared by P.W.17, the investigating Officer also confirms the place of occurrence. Therefore, the question of doubting the case of the prosecution with regard to the witnessing of the occurrence by P.Ws.1 and 2 does not arise. The overt acts attributed against A-1 and A-2 clearly tally with the medical evidence. Further, there was no material to show that the accused was present in the station at 7 p.m. on 07.09.1998 when P.Ws.1 and 2 went to the police station for lodging the FIR. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the ocular testimony of prosecution witnesses coupled with the medical evidence fortifies the case of the prosecution and in the light of the same, the trial Court has assigned sound reasonings for convicting the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC and such a finding does not call for any interference.
13.We have carefully examined the materials available on record and considered the submissions made on both sides.
14.It is the case of the prosecution that the occurrence took place on 07.09.1998 at 5.45 p.m. near Madathur railway gate and at the time of occurrence P.Ws.1 and 2 were present on the spot. Immediately after the occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2 have proceeded to Thattaparai Police Station and lodged a complaint/Ex.P.1. But the learned counsel for the appellants has raised a doubt with regard to the existence of the Ex.P.1 stating that P.W.1 in her evidence stated that when she went to the police station on a word sent by the South Police Station, Tuticorin, she had seen the A-2 in the police Station and the police had obtained a statement from P.W.1 and obtained the signature of P.Ws.1 and 2. Thus, by relying upon the said piece of evidence, the Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the complaint signed by P.W.1 and her son was suppressed by the police and after the arrest of the accused the police should have preferred Ex.P.1 with a concocted story to suit the case of the prosecution. But the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no material to show that P.Ws.1 and 2 had seen A-2 on the date of occurrence namely on 07.09.1998 when she went to the police station immediately after the occurrence at 7 p.m., P.W.17 had stated in his evidence that he arrested both the accused and brought them to the police station only on 08.09.1998 at 10 a.m. The evidence of P.W.1 would show that she had gone to the police station for the second time and seen the accused at the Police Station at Tuticorin on 08.09.1998. In short, a close reading of the evidence of P.W.1 would show that P.W.1 went to the Police Station for the first time immediately after the occurrence at 7 p.m on the date of occurrence and lodged a complaint and for the second time she went to Thoothukudi South Police station on 08.09.1998 on a call made by the police, and had seen the accused No.2 at Thoothukudi South Police Station. According to P.W.17, he arrested the accused at 5 a.m. on 08.09.1998 and brought him to the Police station at 10 a.m. Under such circumstances, on seeing the accused No.2 at Thoothukudi South Police Station on the next day morning by P.W.2 would not give rise to any suspicion to doubt the birth of Ex.P.1, which was given at 7 p.m. on 07.09.1998. Further, as pointed out by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, absolutely there was no material to show that P.W.1 had seen A-2 at 07.09.1998 at 7 p.m. when she went for the first time to lodge the complaint. Under such circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant that by suppressing the earlier complaint, Ex.P.1 was introduced with a concocted story, particularly in the circumstances, when P.W.1 had mentioned the name of the accused in Ex.P.1.
15.Though yet another submission was made by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.13 in his evidence stated that he was a witness to the confession statement made by A-1, actually the confession was recorded only from A-2, and not from A-1 and hence the arrest and recovery of the materials pursuant to the confession statement is highly doubtful, but on a perusal of the evidence of P.W.13, we find that he had mentioned the name of both the accused in his evidence and therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the arrest and recovery of weapon from the accused is doubtful.
16.Further, we find that the FIR was registered by 7 p.m. on 07.09.1998, but on the next day morning at 6 a.m., the Express FIR had reached the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Tuticorin. We do not find any delay in handing over the FIR to the Judicial Magistrate. The submission made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that since it was night, the FIR was handed over on the next day at 6 a.m. on 08.09.1998 appears to be an acceptable reason. Therefore, the delay in handing over the FIR, will not be helpful to the case of the appellants to throw out the case of the prosecution.
17.Though yet another submission was made by the learned counsel for the appellants that when it is the case of the prosecution that A-2 inflicted injuries with a knife, in the post mortem certificate not even a single stab injury was mentioned. On going through the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, we find that no challenge was made by the appellant with regard to the weapon used by the accused in the occurrence. Under such circumstances, in the absence of any challenge with regard to the weapon by the accused, we do not find any force in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants. Further, though P.W.1 had stated that the occurrence took place at one furlong north of the railway gate, which is contrary to the observation mahazar prepared by P.W.17, wherein the scene of occurrence is shown as west to the railway station, the said contradiction is not grave in nature to throw out the case of the prosecution. Particularly, considering the fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 are illiterates and rustic witnesses. Similarly, the other contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants are also very minor in nature which contradiction would not be fatal to the case of the prosecution and the said contradiction would normally occur when the witnesses were adducing the evidence after a long lapse of time from the date of occurrence. Moreover, when the murder is committed during a broad day light in the public place, we do not find any reason to reject the evidence of prosecution witnesses on minor contradictions. We find that the evidence of prosecution witnesses are cogent and convincing and strongly establishes the guilt against the accused. Above all there are certain salient features which demonstrably establish the guilt of the both Accused.
In the present case there are many impelling features which are demonstrably prove the actual occurrence: They are as follows:
"1)The recovery of the M.O.1 (Cycle) from the scene of occurrence which is unmistakenably serve as a supporting evidence to P.W.1. and P.W.2 that they proceeded to the working spot of the deceased to call the deceased back to their house, fearing that the accused A1 and A2 would attack the deceased as they were conversing in their house which was overheard by P.W.1 residing her adjacent house.
2)The recovery of the broken Bamboo stick in two pieces M.O.11 and M.O.8 and the knife M.O.4 from the occurrence place which said to have been used by the A-1 and A-2.
3)It transpires from the evidence of P.W.13 who was the Inspector Of Police Thattaparrai testifying that on 08.09.1998 at 5.00 a.m he arrested both the accused near SCI godown and that A-2 made a confession. The admissible portion of which has lead to the recovery of certain material objects which are supportive of the prosecution case.
4)The presence of the injury in the right palm of A-2 sustained between the index and thumb finger during the course of occurrence either due to a stab or a cut confirms his participation in the incident. This fact is established by the following undeniable evidence.
5)On the next day of the occurrence i.e on 8.09.98 i.e., A2 was produced before the surgeon of the Govt.Head Quarters Hospital Tuticorin by SI SIPCOT out post for treatment of certain injuries on his person. The copy of the accident register marked as Ex.P.2 reveals that the injuries were alleged to have been caused :
"While assaulting a known person with Kathi ON 07.09.09 AT ABOUT 5 P.M near Meduthur Railway Gate:"
The injuries noted by the doctor are as follows:-
1)A sutured wound 1" vertical right index finger.
2)A sutured wound 1 ." vertical thumb finger.
Further, it is noted that the both the injuries were of 24 hours old and they were simple in nature. A-2 was treated as (Out Patient). The presence of the injury is confirmed by the evidence and the suggestions made by the defence lawyer during the cross examination to P.W.1 who replied as follows:-
"nuz;lhtJ vjphpf;F Btiy ghh;f;Fk;BghJ fhak; Vw;gl;lJ vd;why; rhpay;y. nuz;lhtJ vjphpf;F Vw;gl;l fhak; gw;wp brhy;ytpy;iybad;whYk;, vjphpfSf;Fk; ne;j tHf;fpw;Fk; ve;j rk;ge;jKk; ny;iy vd;why; rhpay;y""
P.W.2 has denied a suggestion put to him as follows:-
"vjphpf;F mth Btiy ghh;j;j nlj;jpy; fhak; gl;lBj jtpu rk;gt nlj;jpy; fhak; gl;lJ vd;why; rhpay;y.""
P.W.17 in his examination has stated that as follows:-
"vjphpf;F ehd; brhd;d khjphp fhaA;fs; vJt[k; Vw;gltpy;iy vd;why; rhpay;y. Vjphpia ifJ bra;tjw;F Kd;Bg mth; mtUf;F Vw;gl;l fhaj;jpw;F Kjy; rpfpr;if bgw;wpUe;jhh; vd;gJ g[yd; tprhuizapy; JtA;fpaJ."
A-2 in his 313 statement has not made any answer about the incident sustained by him. Thus it is brought on the evidence that the A2 sustained two injuries during the occurrence which firmly establishes is presence in the seen of occurrence and his participation. Thus all the above factors demonstrably serve as very strong piece of supporting evidence in proof of the prosecution case.
18.In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against both the accused and no case has been made out by the appellants warranting this Court to set aside the conviction and sentence passed by the Court below. Finally we would like to pointed out though the learned judge, while giving the sum and substance of the charge has pointed out that both the accused committed the murder in-furtherance of common intention and equally participating in the commission murder. But in the charge he has mentioned only the offence against both under section 302 without adding section 34 of IPC. Therefore, we confirm the conviction against each of them as one under section 302 read with 34 IPC and retaining the sentence of imprisonment for life and the fine imposed by the court below with the default clause. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
19.It is reported that the accused are on bail. The Sessions Judge concerned is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the accused and commit them to Prison to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.
sms To:
The Inspector of Police, Thattapparai Police Station, Thoothukudi District.