Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. The injured witnesses and the deceased are relatives. P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased-Angathevar. P.W.2 is the son of P.W.1. The case of the prosecution is that, on 03.11.2002, at about 9.45 p.m., in front of P.W.1- Periakaruppan's house, the accused were firing crackers. When the same was objected to by the witnesses, the accused pelted stones at P.W.1 and when the deceased intervened, the accused pushed him down, thereby caused the death of Angathevar. Thus the accused were charged for the offences punishable under Section 324, I.P.C. as well as under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.

3. The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 20, marked Exs.P1 to P13 and produced M.Os.1 to 5. On behalf of the accused, Exs.D1 and D2 were marked. In reply to the questioning under Section 313, Cr.P.C., the accused denied their complicity to the charges levelled against them.

4. The case of the prosecution is that on 03.11.2002, P.W.1 was, in his house, lying near the front door. In front of his house, A-1 to A-3 were firing crackers. When P.W.1 asked them to move away from that place to fire crackers, there arose a quarrel between P.W.1 and the accused. When P.W.2 questioned them, A-1 threw a stone at P.W.2. At that time, when the deceased intervened, A-1 to A-4 pushed down the deceased and hit him on his chest. When P.W.1 intervened, A-4 Duraipandi attacked P.W.1 by pelting stones at him. When P.W.3 intervened, A-3 Singaraj, pelted stone on his head, causing injury. P.W.4, who intervened, was again attacked by A-1. The injured witnesses along with Angathevar, went before the Police Station. Since the deceased Angathevar expressed of pain in the chest, the police directed them to go to the hospital. When he was taken to the hospital, the Doctor expressed that he had already died. Thereafter, a complaint was lodged under Ex.P1 by P.W.1.

8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent and considered the material on record.

9. It is seen from the evidence of the witnesses herein that the occurrence took place on the night of Diwali. Evidently, there were crackers fired by the public in the open space near the residence of P.W.1. Objecting to the accused firing crackers in front of his house, P.W.1 asked the accused to move away from that place to fire crackers. However, it resulted in a wordy altercation between the accused and the injured witnesses, who were there in the scene of occurrence. When P.W.2 objected to the use of intemperate language of A-1 abusing P.W.1, P.W.2 was attacked by A-1. It is in the evidence of P.W.2 and P.W.20 that all the accused were stated to have attacked the injured witnesses by pelting small stones which were strewn in the grazing ground. The evidence herein does not speak about the size of the stones used in the occurrence, P.W.20's evidence shows the recovery of 8 small jelly stones marked as M.O.1 series and the injury that one notice on P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 under Exs.P6. P7 and P8 respectively, are simple injuries sustained by the witnesses. Apart from this, as already pointed out, the evidence of P.W.20 referred to the statements of P.Ws.1, 2, 3 and 4 that none of the witnesses spoke about the accused attacking the deceased by pushing him down. The evidence of P.W.14 - Doctor, read with Ex.P13, points out that there is hardly any material to substantiate that the death of the deceased was one caused on account of any overt act of the accused herein. Thus the evidence available herein in this case only disproves the case of the prosecution that the accused had caused the death of the deceased - Anguthevar by pushing him down, attacking on the chest. In the light of the above-said facts, particularly going by the medical evidence as well as the evidence of P.W.20, we have no hesitation in setting aside the conviction and sentences imposed on the accused A1 to A4 under Section 302 read with Section 34, I.P.C.