Extract
Kashi Ram & Others VS. State Of Rajasthan
The Judgement Information System REPORTABLEIN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICITONCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1278 OF 2001 Murugan and Anr.Versus State Rep. by Public Prosecutor Madras, Tamil Nadu & Anr.JUDGMENT Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court setting aside the judgment of acquittal recorded by learned Principal, Assistant Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. The appellant faced trial along with one Velliah for alleged commission of offences punishable under Section 307 and 307 read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short `IPC'). Though the trial Court found that the prosecution has not established the case, in appeal filed by the State it was held by the High Court that the prosecution established the accusations against the appellants. But the acquittal so far as the Velliah A3 is concerned, the High Court confirmed the acquittal.2. Background facts in a nutshell are as follows: Sankaralingam (PW1), Ramaiah (PW2) and Paramasivam (PW6) are brothers. They reside at Marugal Kurichi village.Accused 1 to 3 are also residing in the same village. Their house is situated very near to the house of PWs. 1, 2 and 6.Accused 1 and 2 are brothers.On 2.10.1989 at about 5.00 p.m. Kannammal, the mother of PWs. 1 and 2 went to the corner of the street to collect water from the common water pipe. The third accused's wife Manickam also came to take water. While collecting water from the common pipe, there was a quarrel between Kannammal and Manickam, the wife of third accused. Ramaiah (PW 2) who noticed this, went there and separated them and took his mother to his house.Next day i.e. 3.10.1989 at about 7.30 a.m. Ramaiah (PW.2), Sankaralingam (PW.1) and one Manickam, wife of another brother, went to the well, which is situated in Nallakannau Thevar's garden, in order to take bath. When the first accused came to know about the occurrence which took place on the earlier day, he had grievance against PW.2 thinking that PW.2 abused the wife of the third respondent in support of his mother.At about 7.30 a.m. when PWs. 1 and 2 and another went near the well, A1 to A3 waylaid them. A1 and A2 were having`Aruval' with them. A3 caught hold of PW.2 from behind his back. At that time, A1 and A2 with `Aruval' attacked PW.2 indiscriminately on the back, left shoulder, right shoulder,hands, etc. PW.2 received number of bleeding...
See the full content of this document