Originally, in this case, there were fiveaccused, including these appellants.(a)The accused and the prosecution party belong to PaanangulamVillage in Tirunelveli District.There is a temple in the said village, knownas "Muppidari Amman Koil".The villagers use to organize annual festival in thetemple, known as "Kodai" festival, during summer season.Thedeceased Kanthan, one Ramamoorthy Reddiar and P.W.14 were the leaders of thevillage, who organized the said festival.On 12.08.1997, these accused came tothe temple and wanted the deceased and others to play songs, through speakers,relating to their communal leader.The deceased and others declined.This occurrence isprojected to be the motive.(b)P.W.1 is the wife and P.Ws.2 and 3 are the daughters of thedeceased.P.W.20 is the mother of the deceased.On 20.08.1997, at about 10.30p.m., P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.20 and the deceased were in their house at PaanangulamVillage, Singikulam Main Road.At that time, suddenly, all the five accused,including the absconding accused Murugesan, came to the house and knocked at thedoor.P.W.20 opened the door.All the five accused trespassed into the houseof the deceased.At that time, the 1st accused/1st appellant - Pool Pandi andthe absconding accused Murugesan and the 4th accused Ramiah, were all armed witharuvals.The 2nd accused/2nd appellant - Murugan and the 3rd accused/3rdappellant - Raju did not possess any weapon.On entering into the house, the1st accused/1st appellant shouted as to where the deceased was.P.W.1 attemptedto intervene.Immediately, the 1st accused/1st appellant cut her with aruval,on her right hand and caused simple hurt.The deceased was sleeping in theroom.All the accused went near him.The 1st accused/1st appellant attacked himwith aruval on his hip, left forehand and on the head below the left ear,repeatedly.The absconding accused Murugesan cut him on his chest and rightshoulder.P.W.20 tried to intervene.But, the 2nd accused/2nd appellant pushedher down and stamped her on her chest, causing simple hurt.The 3d accused/3rdappellant attacked the daughters of the deceased with hand and caused simplehurt.The deceased died instantaneously.All the accused, thereafter, fled-away from the scene of occurrence.(c)P.W.6 is the brother of the deceased.At the time ofoccurrence, he was at his home.On hearing the alarm raised, he rushed to thehouse of the deceased and came to know about the occurrence.Then P.W.1narrated to him the entire occurrence.P-23 is the FIR.Then, P.W.17 forwarded Exs.P-1 and P-23 to the court,through P.W.18, a Constable attached to the said police Station.Then he handed overcopy of the FIR to P.W.21, the then Inspector of Police, attached to NanguneriPolice Station.(e)Taking-up the case for investigation, P.W.21 proceeded tothe place of occurrence at 4.30 a.m. on 21.08.1997 and prepared Ex.He also prepared Ex.P-29Rough sketch, showing the place of occurrence.Then, he conducted inquest onthe body of the deceased between 5.00 a.m. and 8.00 a.m. and prepared Ex.P-28Inquest Report.During inquest, P.W.21 examined P.Ws.1 to 5 and P.W.20 andrecorded their statements.Then, he recovered bloodstained brick piece (M.O.3)and sample brick piece (M.O.4), from the place of occurrence, under Ex.P-4Mahazar, in the presence of witnesses.Thereafter, he forwarded the body forpostmortem.P.W.15 opined that the deceased would appear to have died of injury to lungs,shock and haemorrhage.Ex.P-22 is the postmortem certificate.According tohim, these injuries could have been caused by weapon like aruval.(g)As soon as P.W.1 made the complaint under Ex.P-1, she wassent with a police memo to the Government Hospital at Nanguneri, for treatment.P.W.15 examined her at 6.30 a.m. on 21.08.1997 and found an incised wound 6 x 1x/12 cm, over medial aspect of right palm.(i)Continuing the investigation, P.W.21 forwarded the materialobjects, collected from the scene of occurrence, to Court.When they were brought to the police station, at 2.30 p.m., on04.09.1997, the 1st accused/1st appellant gave a voluntary confession, in whichhe disclosed the place where he had hidden an aruval and on the same date, at3.30 p.m., the absconding accused Murugesan gave a voluntary confession, inwhich he disclosed the place where he had hidden another aruval.Ex.P-27 is the Serological Report.As per the Chemical AnalystReport, bloodstains were found on two aruvals and no bloodstain was found on the3rd aruval.As per the Serological Report Ex.P-27, bloodstains are of humanorigin but, result of grouping test remained inconclusive.P.W.21 collectedmedical records, examined the doctor and finally laid charge sheet against allthe five accused, on 08.09.1997, under Sections 147, 148, 449, 352, 323, 324,109 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.Fine amount, if any, paid by them shall be refunded tothem.The bail bonds executed by them shall stand discharged.(iii)The conviction of the 1st appellant/1st accused (Pool Pandi)under Sections 302, 324 and 449 IPC is hereby confirmed.However, thepunishments imposed thereunder shall stand modified, as under:(c)For the offence under Section 449 IPC, he shall undergorigorous imprisonment for one year and shall pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, indefault shall undergo two weeks rigorous imprisonment.The sentences areordered to run concurrently.(d)The fine amounts, if any, already paid by him as per thesentence imposed by the trial court shall be adjusted towards the fine amountsnow imposed.Excess fine amount, if any, paid shall be refunded to him.(iv)It is stated that the 1st appellant/1st accused (Pool Pandi) ison bail.The bail bonds executed by him shall stand cancelled.The trial courtis directed to take necessary steps to secure his presence and commit him tojail to undergo the sentences imposed on him.(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU,J) The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.78/1999 on the fileof the learned Special District and Sessions Judge for Communal Clash Cases,Southern Districts at Madurai.Initially, the case was on the file of theII-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in S.C.No.364/98 andcharges were framed by the same court as against all the five accused, asunder:The 3rd accused was one Murugesan andthe 5th accused was one Ramiah.The 4th accusedwas one Mr.Ramiah.By judgment, dated 30.09.2004, the trial court acquitted the4th accused Ramiah from all the charges framed against him.However, the trialcourt convicted these appellants and sentenced them as detailed hereunder:The trial court ordered the sentences to run concurrently.On 12.08.1997, suchfestival was celebrated.The deceased, in this case, was one Mr.P.W.6 reduced the same into writing, as acomplaint.Then taking the complaint, P.W.1 and P.W.6 went to Nanguneri PoliceStation.(d)At 3.00 a.m., on 21.08.1997, when P.W.17, the then Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Nanguneri Police Station, was on duty, P.W.1presented the complaint to him.On the said complaint, P.W.17 registered a casein Crime No.359/1997 under Sections 324, 302 IPC.(f)P.W.15 Dr.Christopher Dass, was the Civil Surgeon, attachedto Nanguneri Government Hospital, at the relevant point of time.On 21.08.1997,at about 1.00 p.m., he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased.Henoticed the following external injuries."(1)Incised wound over upper part of chest obliquely placed, 4 cm belowthe upper end of sternum, measuring 27 x 12 x 31/2 cms.On the right side ofsternum, it measured 18 cm.Part of right lung has come out through the lowerpart of the wound.(2)Incised wound 18 x 10 x 6 cm on the right side of right upper armexposing muscles and fractured end of upper part of humerus.(3)Incised wound 4 cms distal to left wrist and muscle was hanging looselyfrom skin, from the lateral aspect.Cut ends of metacarpal bones and tendonsseen.(4)Incised wound 12 x 6 x 2 cm over posterior aspect of left fore armexposing muscles.(5)Incised wound 20 x 4 cm over left side of abdomen, maximum depth 3cm onthe upper part, wound present transversely.(6)Incised wound 3 x 11/2 x 1/2 cm over left side of fore head."P.W.15 opined that the injury sustained by P.W.1 issimple in nature.(h)P.W.20 was also sent for treatment, with a police memo.At08.15 p.m., on 21.08.1997, P.W.20 appeared before P.W.15, for treatment.Onexamination, P.W.15 found a brownish contusion 6 x 3 cm over upper part ofchest.P.W.15 opined that the said injury is simple in nature.On 28.08.1997, theaccused 1, 2 and 4 and the absconding accused Murugesan surrendered before thelearned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Tuticorin.At 4.15 p.m.,the 4th accused Ramiah gave a voluntary confession, in which he disclosed theplace where he had hidden another aruval.In pursuance of the confessions, therespective accused took the police and witnesses to the respective places andproduced the weapons (M.Os. 1, 2 and 5 Aruvals) and P.W.21 recovered the same inthe presence of P.Ws.12 and 13 and returned to the police station.(P.Ws.12 and13 have turned hostile and did not support the case of the prosecution, in anymanner).P.W.21 forwarded the accused to the court for judicial remand andhanded over the material objects to the Court.On such examination, the Chemical Analyst submitted a reportunder Ex.4.Based on the above materials, the learned II-AdditionalDistrict and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, framed charges against all the fiveaccused, as detailed in the 1st paragraph of the judgment.All the accusedpleaded innocence.Therefore, they were put on trial.Before the examinationof witnesses commenced, as we have already pointed out, the accused Murugesan(the 3rd accused, as per the original array of parties) absconded.The trialCourt, therefore, split-up the case against him as S.C.No.8/2003 and maderearrangement of the parties and proceeded with the trial.During trial, toestablish the charges against the accused, on the side of prosecution 21witnesses were examined and 37 Exhibits were marked, besides 6 M.Os.5.Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 20 are injured eye-witnesses.P.Ws.2 and 3 are eye-witnesses to the occurrence.These witnesseshave spoken to about the participation of all the five accused in the crime.P.W.4, has spoken to about the motive occurrence, which took place on12.08.1997. P.Ws.14 has also spoken to about the motive occurrence.P.W.5 isthe son-in-law of the deceased.He has stated that he saw the accused 1 and 2somewhere near the place of occurrence with weapons.P.W.6, the brother of thedeceased, has spoken to the fact that he drafted Ex.P-1, as dictated by P.W.1.P.W.15 has spoken to about the postmortem conducted by him on the body of thedeceased and his opinion regarding the cause of death.The other witnesses are officialwitnesses.6.When the above incriminating materials in evidence were putto the accused under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, they denied thesame as false.However, they did not choose to examine any witnesses or markany documents.Considering the above materials, the trial court acquitted the4th accused Mr.Ramiah, holding that his presence in the occurrence place itselfhad not been proved.However, the trial court found the appellants/accusedNos.1 to 3 guilty on various offences and accordingly punished them as detailedin the 2nd paragraph of the judgment.7.We have heard the learned senior counsel for the appellantand the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we havealso perused the records, carefully.8.As we have pointed out, P.Ws.1 to 3 and 20 are the eye-witnesses and they are inmates of the house.The foremost contention of thelearned counsel for the appellants is that the occurrence would not havehappened in the house of the deceased at all.According to him, the deceased,besides being a drunkard, had a number of enemies in the village and while hewas fully drunk elsewhere, he was done to death by unidentifiable persons.Later on, according to the defence, the dead body was brought to the house ofthe deceased and then the prosecution story has been built-up.In ourconsidered opinion, this defence taken has not even been probabilized by theaccused.Except making a vague suggestion to the witnesses, nothing more havebeen brought on record to doubt the fact that the occurrence had taken placeinside the house of the deceased.Apart from that, P.Ws.1 to 3 and P.W.20 havecategorically stated about the occurrence.The bloodstained brick piecerecovered from the place of occurrence would also go to prove that theoccurrence had taken place only inside the house of the accused.Thus, in ourconsidered opinion, the prosecution has clearly proved that the occurrence wasonly inside the house of the deceased.In order to substantiate this contention, the learned counsel for the appellantssubmitted that P.W.1 has admitted, during cross-examination, that after theoccurrence, she was at the place of occurrence continuously, as she was full ofgrief and she has further stated that from a local telephone booth, message waspassed on to the police, immediately after the occurrence and thus police cameto the place of occurrence, in a short while.After the arrival of the police,according to the learned counsel, the FIR could have been concocted and,therefore, no importance could be attached to the same.But, the main contention of the learned counsel that police would havearrived at the scene of occurrence, immediately on receiving the telephonemessage, needs serious consideration.We have perused the evidence of P.W.1, onthis aspect.Of course, P.W.1 has stated so.Such a rustic village womancannot be expected to be meticulous to speak about the time of arrival of thepolice.From the evidence of P.W.15, it could be seen that P.W.1 went to thedoctor on 21.08.1997 at 8.30 a.m. Had it been true that the police arrived atthe scene of occurrence, immediately after the occurrence, as suggested by thedefence, in all probabilities, P.W.1 would have been sent to the hospitalforthwith.Prompt lodging of the FIR, in this case,guarantees, to some extent, the truth of the contents in the FIR.According to the learned counsel, P.W.1, during cross-examination, hasadmitted that police sniffer dog was brought to the place of occurrence.When aspecific question was made to P.W.21, on this aspect, P.W.1 has stated thatpolice sniffer dog was never brought to the place of occurrence.So faras the 1st accused is concerned, in our considered view, the prosecution hassucceeded in proving his participation in the crime.It has been establishedthat he trespassed into the house, caused murder of the deceased and caused,voluntarily, simple hurt on P.W.1, with dangerous weapon.Therefore, the 1staccused alone is liable to be punished under Sections 302, 324 and 449 IPC.Nowturning to the quantum of punishment, for the offence under Section 302 IPC, weare inclined to impose the punishment of imprisonment for life and a fine ofRs.1000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for one month.For the offence under324 IPC, we are inclined to impose the punishment of rigorous imprisonment forthree months and a fine of Rs.3000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for twoweeks and for the offence under Section 449 IPC, we are inclined to impose apunishment of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.3,000/-, indefault two weeks rigorous imprisonment.21.We make it clear that any of the observations, in respectof the alleged involvement of the absconding accused Murugesan, made in thisjudgment, shall not be used against him or shall not be treated as a findingregarding his involvement, when Mr.(a)For the offence under Section 302 IPC, he is sentenced toundergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default toundergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.(b)For the offence under 324 IPC, he shall undergo rigorousimprisonment for three months and shall pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, in defaultshall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two weeks.1.The District and Sessions Judge, Special Court for Communal Clash Cases for Souther District at Madurai.2.The Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli District.3.The II-Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli.4.The Judicial Magistrate, Nanguneri.5.The Inspector of Police, Nanguneri Police Station, Tirunelveli District.6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

Cited provisions: Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 324 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 148 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 147 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 149 in The Indian Penal Code; Section 109 in The Indian Penal Code