http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  517 of 2007

PETITIONER: MANICKAM

RESPONDENT: STATE BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, T. NADU

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13/02/2008

BENCH: P.P. NAOLEKAR & P. SATHASIVAM  

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT O R D E R  

1.      Appellant Manickam along with two other accused  Palani and Oomaiyan @ Mani  was tried for the offences under Sections 449/324/302/109 of Indian Penal Code ( in  short \023IPC\024) on the allegation that on 26.12.1993 at about      8.00 a.m. in  Vizhududaiyan Village, appellant along with accused  Palani and Oomaiyan   trespassed into the house of Anbalagan, caused simple injuries on the person of  Alamelu (PW 4) and Anjalai (PW 5) and committed the murder of Anbalagan.    

2.      The Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli, by his judgment dated 8.10.1996 acquitted the  appellant and the other accused persons.  Challenging the said judgment of the  Sessions Judge, the State filed an appeal before the High Court.  The High Court by  its impugned judgment dated 21.7.2006 acquitted accused Palani and Oomaiyan but  set aside the judgment in respect of appellant-accused and held him guilty under  Section 304 (Part-II) IPC and sentenced him to undergo R.I. for 5 years.

3.      Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the High Court, the appellant has  preferred the present appeal by special leave.

4.      We have heard learned senior counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence  on record.  PW 4 Alamelu, the wife of Anbalagan (since deceased) and  PW 5 Anjalai,  who also sustained injuries in the incident,  have supported the prosecution case  coupled with the statement of appellant-accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.   On consideration of the aforesaid evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the  impugned judgment of the High Court.  However, considering  the facts that the  appellant-accused is an old person aged about 77 years, the incident is of the year  1993, the appellant-accused was convicted for exceeding the right of private defence  and he has already undergone sentence for more than 1= years, the ends of justice will  be served if he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him.  We order  accordingly.  The appellant-accused be set at liberty if he is not required in any other  case. 4.      The appeal stands disposed of accordingly.