The Madras High Court today dismissed the appeal of five life convicts and confirmed sentences imposed by the trial court in two different cases.
Justice A Selvam and Justice V S Ravi of the Madurai Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by one Purakudiyan and his two sons, one of whom is deceased, for final hearing against their life sentence imposed by District and Sessions Court at Sivaganga on April 28, 2008.
The prosecution case was that Purakudiyan and his sons killed his brother Karuppiah on Jan 3, 2006 over partition of common property while he was on his way to Kakudi village with his wife.
Based on available evidence on record and accounts of the wife, the trial court had found all three guilty and sentenced them to life.
The trio then moved the High Court to quash the sentence, contending that the evidence of witnesses was not in consonance with the alleged attack, which the court rejected.
The bench rejected their plea, pointing out that witness accounts had given clear evidence to the effect that they had attacked the man with deadly weapons.
"Since consistent medical evidence has been adduced by the doctor in consonance with the case of the prosecution, this court cannot invite conviction and sentence against each accused on the basis of injuries alleged to have been caused by him on the body of the deceased," the bench said.
In another case, two men who were convicted by the Tiruchirapalli District and Sessions Court, preferred an appeal against their conviction in a murder case.
The prosecution case was that the duo went to the house of one Rajammal late at night on Jan 13, 2011. She then asked them why they had come at such an odd hour. The complainant, her son, said he had seen them through a glass partition and later gone to bed.
The next day, he found his mother's dead body near the bathroom and her jewellery was missing.
A case was registered and the trial court after considering records and hearing both sides, framed two charges against them under IPC Sec 302 (Punishment for murder) and 394 (voluntarily causing hurt in commiting robbery), convicted and sentenced them to life.
Aggrieved, the duo moved the High Court contending that motive for occurrence had not been established and therefore, the prosecution case was liable to be eschewed.
Government Advocate submitted that some witnesses had seen them before and after the crime occurred and that the duo had voluntary given confessional statements on basis of which some material objects (jewels of deceased) were recovered.
The Judges said the trial court, after prepending available evidence on record, had rightly found both accused guilty of offences under the IPC Sections. It said it did not find any error or illegality in the convictions and sentences passed by the trial court and dismissed the appeals.
