Case: Pandian @ Veerapandian Vs. State of Tamil Nadu

This is an appeal by the original accused no.1 Pandian @ Veerapandian from a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras convicting him under SectionB read with Section 304 Part I of the Indian Penal Code. He has been sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment. The prosecution case briefly is as follows:One Kunju @ Govindraj who was the paternal uncle of PW.1 Raja and was related to accused nos.1 and 2 had contested the Preeidentship of the village Panchayat in 1986. His opponent was PW.4 Dhanamani. PW.4 won the election. Deceased no.1 had supported PW.4 offering him financial aid and support while accused no.1 the present appellant, was a strong supporter of Kunju @ Govindraj. There was, therefore, enmity between accused no.1 and PW.1 on the one side and deceased no.1 and the others on the other side. Accused no.1 was a Panchayat Union Contractor. The bills which were due to him were not passed for payment and he presumed that this was done at the instance of PW.4 and his men. The stopping go payment led to a quarrel between accused no.1 and PW.4 on 23.4.1986. In respect of this incident PW.4 had preferred a compliant at the police stationOn 25.4.1986 there was yet another clash at 8.30 p.m. between the group supporting PW.4 and the group owing allegiance the accused no.1. In this occurrence accused no.1, his father and his younger brother sustained injuries and were admitted to Government Hospital, Chidambaram. A criminal complaint has also been lodged in this connection. Two days thereafter on 27.4.1986 there was another incident when PW.1 and other proceeded to house of Rajalaxmi the wife of deceased no.1 and abused her in vulgar language in respect of which also a criminal complaint has been lodged.It is the prosecution case that some time thereafter the accused no.1 told PW.1 that deceased no.1 Kodandaswami was behind the attach on him, his father and his younger brother and, therefore, deceased no.1 should not be allowed to live any more. Two or three days prior to the incident accused no.1 escorted PW.1 to the tea shop of PW.13 situated in Melamoongiladi. Accused no.1 asked PW.1 to fetch accused no.2 from Chavadikuppam. Accused no.2 is also related to accused no.1 and PW.1 Accordingly no.2 is also related to accused no.1 a bus from his village which is about 40 kilometres away. At about 5.30 P.M. in the evening the two accused and PW.1 came to the tea shop of PW.13. Accused no.1 told accused no.2 that deceased no.1 was responsible for attacking him, his father and his brother and hence he should be killed. Accused No.1 returns to his native village from Bhawangiri and accused no.2 could hit deceased no.1 by driving his car over him so that it would appear as if deceased no.1 had lost his life in a motor accident. Accused no.2 said that he did not know deceased no.1 and would not be able to identify him whereupon PW.1 said that he would accompany accused no.2 in the car and would identify deceased no.1On 25.5.1985 accordingly in the evening at about 7.00/7.30 p.m. PW.1 went to the workshop of accused no.2. thereafter both of them took Car, filled it with petrol and reached Bhavanagiri. The car was halted near Chamundeeswari Temple. PW.1 let the car to ascertain whether deceased no.1 was still available in the market place or had left for his village. He ascertained that the deceased was in the vicinity and he had started his journey towards his village. Deceased no.1. was accompanied by deceased nos. 2 and 3 and PW.3 when the car came upon these persons. There were, thus, four person walking along the road. Accused no.2 told PW.1 that he will not be able to hit deceased no.1 along. He will have to hit all the persons. PW.1, however, directed him to do so. Accordingly the accused no.2 drove his car and hit deceased nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as PW.3. The car drove away thereafter. The car had suffered some damage for which it had to be repaired. In the meantime several persons had gathered at the spot of the accident. As a result of the accident deceased nos. 1, 2 and 3 died while PW.3 sustained injuries for which he had to be hospitalised. A Criminal complaint was lodged.

Court's reasoning:
On the nature of the offence, the High Court has looked to the nature of the evidence and convicted accused no.1 for conspiracy. It has, however, held that though the evidence of the Approver is that the conspiracy was for commission of murder of deceased no.1, the court could not close its eyes to the judicial confession of accused no.2 which indicated that the offence expected to be committed was limited to breakage of hands and legs of deceased no.1. The High Court said that the benefit that arises out of the confession of accused no.2 cannot be denied to accused no.1. Hence the High Court has convicted accused no.1 under SectionB read with Section 304 Part I of the I.P.C. Similarly accused no.2 has also been convicted by the High Court under SectionB read with Section 304 Part I of the I.P.C. The detailed reasoning given by the High Court in its judgment in exhaustive and convincing. There is not reason to take a view different from the view taken by the High Court.