Ochathevar Vs. State By Insp. Of Police. T.N.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1999
Petitioner: Ochathevar
Respondent: State By Insp. Of Police. T.N.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 201 of 1999
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: May 09, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 34 – Common intention – Accused armed with lethal weapon with companions – Inflicting cut injury on the hand of one of the two deceased – Participation in operation proved. Held that this speaks of his sharing common intention with others. Conviction under section 302/34 proper.
Evidence Act, 1872
Sections 9, 3 – Identity – Disputed for want of light – Statements of PWs showing the house electrified by power supply from neighbouring house occupied by the son of deceased – Intruders seen in light – Assailants led by another son of deceased. Held that contention was without force. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Muthiah Thevar was a much married person. He and one of his wives along with one of his sons were murdered by a gang of assailants led by yet another son of Muthiah Thevar during the wee hours of 18-09-85. The trial court convicted four accused persons. Two among them were convicted for murder and the remaining two were convicted for the offence of murder read with section 34 of the IPC and all were sentenced to imprisonment for life each. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals filed by them.
2. PW1 and PW4 are the daughters of Muthiah Thevar. They were also injured in the incident. They identified the accused as the real assailants, all of whom were armed with lethal weapons like aruval and iron rod.
3. As the trial court and the High Court concurrently found that the four accused persons have barged into the house of the deceased, killed the three and injured two others, there was little scope for this Court in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with.
4. However, Mr.R.Sunderavaradan, learned senior advocate contended that want of light for the witnesses to identify the assailants was a serious point which has not received adequate consideration from the trial court/High Court. We have perused the evidence for that purpose. PW1 said that the house was electrified and there was tube light also. According to her, when she heard that some intruders were about to gate-crash into the house, she switched on the light and then saw all the accused. PW4 Nirmala also identified all of them in the same light. PW5 – Ramamurthy saw all the accused running away from the house. PW11 a neighbour said that the house of deceased Muthiah Thevar was electrified and the electric energy was being supplied from a neighbouring house occupied by the son of the deceased. Though an attempt was made during the examination of the witness on the defence side (PW3-brother of Muthiah Thevar) to show that there was no electric energy passing to the house of the deceased, we are not impressed by his evidence. The reason given by him for the electric energy not reaching the house of the deceased is far from satisfactory.
5. Mr. R.Sunderavaradan, learned senior counsel made an alternative attempt to save the fourth accused-Odathevar from conviction for the offence under section 302 with the aid of section 34. The premise adopted by him is the admitted prosecution case that he inflicted cut injury on the hand of one of the deceased-Peechammal. That aspect is not enough to save that accused from the penal liability envisaged under section 34 of the IPC. He went along with rest of the accused armed with deadly weapons like chopper etc., and got inside the house and participated in the operation and he admittedly inflicted a cut injury on one of the deceased. This eloquently speaks of his sharing the common intention with the rest of the assailants.
6. We, therefore, decline to accede to the said contention of the learned senior counsel.
7. We dismiss these appeals.
1. Muthiah Thevar was a much married person. He and one of his wives along with one of his sons were murdered by a gang of assailants led by yet another son of Muthiah Thevar during the wee hours of 18-09-85. The trial court convicted four accused persons. Two among them were convicted for murder and the remaining two were convicted for the offence of murder read with section 34 of the IPC and all were sentenced to imprisonment for life each. The High Court confirmed the conviction and sentence and dismissed the appeals filed by them.
2. PW1 and PW4 are the daughters of Muthiah Thevar. They were also injured in the incident. They identified the accused as the real assailants, all of whom were armed with lethal weapons like aruval and iron rod.
3. As the trial court and the High Court concurrently found that the four accused persons have barged into the house of the deceased, killed the three and injured two others, there was little scope for this Court in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with.
4. However, Mr.R.Sunderavaradan, learned senior advocate contended that want of light for the witnesses to identify the assailants was a serious point which has not received adequate consideration from the trial court/High Court. We have perused the evidence for that purpose. PW1 said that the house was electrified and there was tube light also. According to her, when she heard that some intruders were about to gate-crash into the house, she switched on the light and then saw all the accused. PW4 Nirmala also identified all of them in the same light. PW5 – Ramamurthy saw all the accused running away from the house. PW11 a neighbour said that the house of deceased Muthiah Thevar was electrified and the electric energy was being supplied from a neighbouring house occupied by the son of the deceased. Though an attempt was made during the examination of the witness on the defence side (PW3-brother of Muthiah Thevar) to show that there was no electric energy passing to the house of the deceased, we are not impressed by his evidence. The reason given by him for the electric energy not reaching the house of the deceased is far from satisfactory.
5. Mr. R.Sunderavaradan, learned senior counsel made an alternative attempt to save the fourth accused-Odathevar from conviction for the offence under section 302 with the aid of section 34. The premise adopted by him is the admitted prosecution case that he inflicted cut injury on the hand of one of the deceased-Peechammal. That aspect is not enough to save that accused from the penal liability envisaged under section 34 of the IPC. He went along with rest of the accused armed with deadly weapons like chopper etc., and got inside the house and participated in the operation and he admittedly inflicted a cut injury on one of the deceased. This eloquently speaks of his sharing the common intention with the rest of the assailants.
6. We, therefore, decline to accede to the said contention of the learned senior counsel.
7. We dismiss these appeals.
