JUDGMENT
V. Bakthavatsalu, J.
1. C.A. No. 49/98 is pre-furred by accused 1 and 2 and C.A. No. 317/ 98 is preferred by the third accused against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned IV Addl. Sessions Judge, Chennai in S.C. No. 340/96.
2. The charges against the accused are as follows :-
On 29-1-93 at about 11.55 a.m., the accused and others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly in the premises of the XIV Addl. Sessions Judge, City Civil Court and that they were in possession of deadly weapons and that they are liable to be punished under Section 148, I.P.C. The second charge against the accused is that in the same transaction, when P.W. 1 and one Manoharan were standing in the varandah of the Court, the accused and others restrained them and that therefore, they are liable to be punished under Section 341, I.P.C.
3. The third charge against the accused is that the first accused threatened P.W. 1 that he would do away with him and stabbed P.W. 1 and that when Mancharan attempted to prevent the said incident, he was also stabbed and that the above two witnesses were also stabbed by the accused Vellaya Ravi and Kathukuthu Ravi and that Manoharan was stabbed by Rajamani, second accused and others and that therefore, they are liable to be punished under Section 307, I.P.C. (two counts). The fourth charge against the accused is that when the Sub-Inspector and Constables entered into the room, the first accused threatened then and that other accused restrained the police officials from discharging their duties and that they are liable to be punished under Section 353, I.P.C.
4-5. The fifth charge against the accused is that they are liable to be punished under Section 149, I.P.C. The sixth charge against the accused is that in the same transaction, they threatened the staff in the Record Room with the weapons and that the first accused is liable to be punished under Section 506-II, I.P.C. The accused pleaded not guilty.
6. To prove the above charges, the prosecution has examined P.Ws. 1 to 14 and marked Exs. P. 1 to P.24 and M.Os. 1 to 15.
7. The case of the prosecution as disclosed from the above evidence is as follows :-
On 29-1-93, P.W. 1 and others went to the Court to attend their case and they were asked to wait in the varandah of the Court by the Inspector. At that time, Vellai Ravi and others entered the premises. The first accused uttered that P.W. 1 was the enemy of Vellai Ravi and that he would do away with him and that when he brandished an Aruval, P.W. 1 prevented him; as a result of which, the stab fell on his hands. When M. Manoharan attempted to prevent further assault, Rajamani aimed the weapon at his neck and when the same was warded off by Manoharan, the stab fell on his right hand. Thereafter, they ran into the record room of the Court. The accused and others followed them. In the record room, P.Ws. 2 and 3 the clerks were present. At that time, both P.W. 1 and Manoharan were assaulted. When the clerks present in the record room, raised alarm, the first accused threatened them with the weapon.
8. P.W. 13 and P.Ws. 6 and 7 were deputed on that day for bandobust in the Court premises. At about 11.10 a.m. they saw Advocates and others running helter skelter. P.W. 13 saw persons running towards west from the varandah of the Court with weapons. They chased the said persons. When they entered the record room, they saw accused and seven others stabbing P.W. 1 and Manoharan. When they attempted to apprehend them, Rajamani threw the weapon which fell on the fingers of P.W. 6. Thereafter, they caught hold of the said Rajamani and Perumal, the third accused. The weapons in their hands were snatched by P.W. 13. The injured P.W. 1 and Manoharan fled away from the said room. At that time, the accused ran away from the room uttering threatening words against the, witnesses. When P.Ws. 6, 7 and 13 were coming near the porches of the Court, they saw P.W. 10. They handedover the arrested persons and weapons to him.
9. Meanwhile, the injured P.W. 1 went to the police station, P.W. 8 the Head Constable registered the case in Cr.-No. 163/93, Ex. P. 5 is the FIR Ex. P. 24 is the complaint given by P.W. 1. Then, P.W. 8 sent the injured to the hospital with a medical memo.
10. P.W. 4 the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital treated the injured PW 1 at about 11.40 a.m. The Doctor saw incised wound on the left arm measuring 8×5 cms. and another wound measuring 3 x 2 x 1 cms. He also noted abrasions on the left scapula. P.W. 4 also examined P.W. 6 the Constable. During examination, he saw an incised wound on the right hand middle ring finger measuring 4×1 cms. Ex. P-3 is the wound certificate. P.W. 5 the doctor took X-rays on the injuries sustained by P.W. 6 at about 12.10 p.m. He issued certificate Ex. P. 4 stating that the injuries sustained by P.W. 6 are simple in nature.
11. When P.W. 13 went to the police station, he saw the injured coming from the police station and he was informed that the case is registered in the police station and that the injured were being sent, to the hospital. He also accompanied the injured Constable and the injured witnesses to the hospital.
12. P.W. 14 the Inspector took up investigation. He proceeded to the Court premises at about 11.50 a.m. He arrested the accused Rajamani and A-3 produced by P.W. 10. He recovered the weapons under a mahazar Ex. P-8 in the presence of the witnesses. He prepared observation mahazar Ex. P-9 and sketch under Exp-10. He also recovered blood stained cement floor and ordinary mud M.Os. 3 to 8 under mahazar Ex. P.-11. At about 2.15 a.m. he recovered the blood stained clothes produced by Krishnan and the same were recovered under mahazar Ex. P. 12. M.O. 9 is the said cloth. Thereafter, he proceeded to the police station at about 3.15 p.m. with the accused. He examined the injured witnesses and recorded their statements. The clothes produced by them were recovered under mahazar Ex. P. 13. M.Os. 10 to 13 are the said blood stained clothes. On 30-1-93, the accused Rajamani and A-3 were produced before the Court for remand. P.W. 14 also sent a requisition under Ex. P. 14 to send the material objects to the chemical examiner.
13. On 1-2-93, P.W. 14 arrested the accused Viji and about 4.00 p.m. and the statement given by him was recorded, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex. P. 15. He also produced weapons in pursuance of the above statement. M.Os. 14 and 15 are the said weapons and the same were recovered under a mahazar Ex. P. 16. At about 1.30 a.m. Sub-Inspector Manickam arrested the first accused and he was brought to the police station at about 2.00 p.m. A case was registered against the first accused in Crime No. 247 of 93 for assaulting the Sub-Inspector.
14. P.W. 14 examined the witnesses and received the wound certificates. After he sent requisition to the Court with the material objects, the same were sent to the chemical examiner and chemical examiner’s reports were received under Exs. P 22 and P 23. After examining the witnesses he completed the investigation and filed charge sheet on 26-3-93.
15. When the incriminating materials were explained to the accused, they denied the evidence. No evidence was adduced on the side of the accused.
16. The trial Court on a consideration of oral and documentary evidence, found all the accused guilty under Sections 148, 341, 353 and 307, I.P.C. In addition to that, the first accused was found guilty under Section 506-II, I.P.C. Accused 1 to 3 were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under Section 148, I.P.C. and under Section 341, I.P.C. they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- and under Section 353, I.P.C. they were sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for two years. Under Section 307, I.P.C. each accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-. The first accused was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 506-II, I.P.C. The Court has also directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation to P.W. 6.
17. Aggrieved by the said convictions and sentences, the aforesaid two appeals are preferred by the accused.
18. Learned counsel for the first accused contended that the Court Staff P. Ws. 2 and 3 failed to identify the accused and that P.W. 1 the alleged victim himself has turned hostile and that he first accused was not properly identified by the police officials and that the presence of A-1 at the place of the occurrence is doubtful. It is, further, contended that there is glaring discrepancies between the FIR and the wound certificate and that in Ex. P. 17, it is stated that the injured is alleged to have sustained injuries by unknown persons and that the medical memo alleged to have been prepared by P.W. 8 was not produced. Learned counsel has also pointed out the discrepancies in the evidence. It is contended that the evidence of the police witnesses are not corroborated by any independent evidence and that even if their evidence is accepted, the first accused could be convicted only under Section 506-II, I.P.C.
19. Learned counsel for the second accused contended that absolutely there is no evidence to connect the second accused with the offence and that none of the witnesses identified him in the Court and that even P.W. 6 the injured could not identify the second accused and that the trial Court failed to give a finding that the second accused was involved in the occurrence and that the injured P.W. 1 did not identify the second accused and that another injured has not been examined.
20. Learned counsel for the third accused contended that the prosecution has not offered any explanation for the non-examination of another injured person namely, Manoharan and that it is doubtful whether the FIR was registered before the injured were sent to the hospital and that the prosecution failed to produce and mark the medical memo which would disclose the facts as to the name of the assailants and other particulars and that the said medical memo would be the earliest version of the occurrence. It is also contended that no mahazar was prepared for recovery of the weapons at the spot even though it is alleged that the weapons were snatched from the assailants and that P.Ws. 1 to 3 did not identify the third accused and as such, the evidence of the police witnesses could not be accepted. The discrepancies in the oral evidence of the witnesses are also pointed out by the learned counsel for the third accused.
21. Repelling the above contentions, learned Government Advocate has submitted that the occurrence took place in the Court premises and that the evidence will show that there was enmity between the two groups and that the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7, 10 and 13 will prove the case of the prosecution that the present accused participated in the commission of the offence and that the third accused was caught redhanded by the police and that along with him other accused namely, Rajamani were handed over to the Sub-Inspector immediately after the commission of the offence regarding the wound certificates learned Government Advocate contended that in the earliest wound certificates, it is clearly stated that the victim sustained injuries by known persons and that therefore, the evidence on record is sufficient to convict the accused/ appellants.
22. The point for determination is; whether the prosecution has established the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt?
23. The prosecution has examined 14 witnesses. But, P.W. 1 the injured has not supported the case of the prosecution as against the present accused and he was treated as hostile. P.W. 11 and P.W. 12 who are said to have witnessed the occurrence also turned hostile. The case of the prosecution rests on the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7, 10, and 13. If the evidence of the above witnesses is trustworthy and satisfactory, there can be no difficulty in basing conviction on-the present appellants.
24. The prosecution has established that the incident occurred inside the Court premises in a broad daylight. Even the evidence of P.W. 1 who was is declared as hostile witness, will show that at the time of the occurrence, he was present in the Court and that he was stabbed by one Vellai Ravi and seven others. The said Vellai Ravi is the first accused named in the FIR. The present case relates to only three accused. The trial Court has observed that the case as against other accused is split up and that two accused died. It is, further, seen from the evidence of P.W. 1 that when he was stabbed, he rushed to the record room of the Court and that even in the said room, he was stabbed by Vellai Ravi and others. The above evidence of P.W. 1 is corroborated by the evidence of P.Ws. 2 and 3, the clerks attached to the said Court. Even though, P.Ws. 2 and 3 are unable to identify the appellants, they have uniformly stated that two persons rushed to the record room and that they were followed by others and that they attacked two persons and that they raised alarm and that at that time, the Sub-Inspector and a Constable rushed to the room. The evidence of P.W. 12 will show that at the time of the occurrence, he P.W. 1 and Manoharan were sitting adjacent to the Court hall and that at that time, four persons emerged outside the hall with blood stained weapons. The evidence of P.W. 1 will show that in the incident, he and Manoharan sustained stab injuries. Thus, the above evidence will prove the case of the prosecution that at the time of the occurrence, P.W. 1 and Manoharan sustained stab injuries inside the Court premises.
25. It is also established from the evidence that P.Ws. 1 and 6 and Manoharan sustained injuries. P.W. 4 the Doctor has treated P.W. 1 and P.W. 6 and issued wound certificates. It is admitted by P.W. 4 that he examined P.W. 1 at about 11.40 p.m. and that he also examined P.W. 6 at about 12.10 p.m. on the same day. The evidence of P.W. 9 will show that on 29-1-93 P.W. 1 and Manoharan were admitted in the hospital and that they left the hospital on their own accord on 30-1-93. The case sheet relating to the injured are marked as Exs. P. 6 and P. 7. P.W. 6 the Constable has also stated in the evidence that he sustained injuries at the time of the occurrence. From the facts narrated above, It has to be held that the incident: of stabbing P.W. 1, P.W. 6 and another took place inside the Court premises and that in the said incident, P.Ws. 1 and 6 and Manoharan sustained stab injuries. Even though the prosecution has established the above two facts, the burden is upon them to establish, that, the present accused/appellants participated in the commission of the offence and that the injuries were stabbed by them.
26. It is the version of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 13 that they followed the assailants who were chasing the victims and that they entered into the record room of the Court and that they witnessed the occurrence. They have also uniformly stated that in the said incident, the third accused was caught red-handed with the weapon. It is contended on behalf of the accused/appellants that, independent witnesses turned hostile and that. there is no independent evidence to corroborate the version of the police officials and as such, it is unsafe to base conviction on their evidence.
27. It is well settled that merely because the eye-witnesses happen to be the police witnesses cannot be a ground to discard their evidence. In this context, learned Government Advocate has also invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Apex Court reported in Pattu Lal v. State of Punjab 1996 SCC (CRL) 657 : 1996 Cri LJ 2446. In the above decision, the Apex Court has held thus (at p. 2448 of Cri LJ) :–
Evidentiary value of a deposition which is otherwise admissible is not just wiped out in the absence of corroboration. Even in the absence of corroboration, a deposition for its quality may be safely accepted to be correct. It will be unfortunate if on account of overemphasis for corroboration, a crime goes unpunished by not giving due weight to uncorroborated evidence when such evidence is otherwise reliable.
In the above case, the contention raised by the accused that the evidence of the Investigation Officer has to be rejected was not accepted by the Apex Court.
28. Learned Government Advocate also contended that even a portion of the evidence of the hostile witness could be accepted if it is corroborated by other reliable evidence. In State of Gujarat v. Anirudhsingh, 1997 SCC (CRL) 946 : 1997 Cri LJ 3397, the Apex Court has held that merely because a witness has turned hostile, his evidence cannot be rejected in its entirety and that the Court must analyse the evidence and see whether that part of the evidence, which is consistent with the prosecution case is acceptable or not. The Apex Court has also observed thus (at p. 3404 of Cri LJ) :-
It is the salutary duty of every witness who has no knowledge of the commission of crime, to assist the State in giving evidence, unfortunately for various reasons, in particular deterioration in law and order situation and the principle of self-preservation many a witness turn hostile and in some instance even direct witnesses are being liquidated before they are examined by the Court.
If the principles as laid down in the above decision, are considered along with the evidence adduced in this case, I am unable to accept the contention of the accused that the trial Court should not have placed reliance on the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 13.
29. P.W. 1 has stated that when he was standing in the Court verandah, he was stabbed on his hands and that after he warded off the assault, he rushed to the record room. It is seen that the main incident occurred inside the record room. P.W. 6 has stated that when he entered the record room, the first accused and others stabbed the victim and that when he attempted to apprehend them, the first accused instigated others to stab him also. He has also stated that the third accused and Rajamani also brandished knife and threatened them. It is also proved from the evidence of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 13 that the weapons in the hands of the third accused and Rajamani were snatched. But, it is pointed out that P.W 6 has not properly identified the accused in the Court. P.W. 6 has stated thus :–
(vernacular matter omitted)
The Court has recorded that the above witness has identified the first accused. But, P.W. 6 has stated that he would not remember other persons. The trial Court has commented upon the evidence of P.W. 6 regarding the recovery of the weapons. P.W. 6 has stated that he would not remember whether the weapon recovered from Manickam in another case was recovered under a mahazar. He has stated that when P.W. 13 snatched the weapon from the accused, he did not intimate that the weapon should be recovered under a mahazar. I do not think that the above answer given by P.W. 6 in cross-examination would affect the credibility of his evidence which otherwise is corroborated by other evidence. It is, further, seen that he mentioned the name “Kumar” i.e., first accused and Ravi and others. In chief examination, he has not mentioned the name of the second accused.
30. P.W. 7 has also corroborated the evidence of PW 6 on material particulars. He has stated that he PW 6 and PW 13 chased the appellants. He has mentioned the names of the first accused, Rajamani, third accused and others. He has stated that when they went near the assailants, the first accused threatened them with the weapon. He has clearly stated that he saw the assailants stabbing PW 1 and another. It is the version of PW 6 that in the incident, Rajamani brandished a knife and that it fell on his fingers. The above evidence is corroborated by the evidence of PWs 7 and 13, the Sub-Inspector PW 6 has also stated that the accused Rajamani and third accused were caught in the room with the weapons. PW 7 has not specifically mentioned the name of the second accused. However, he has narrated the overt acts done by the first accused. It is also proved from the evidence of PWs 6, 7 and 13 that the third accused was caught red-handed with the weapon.
31. PW 13 the Sub Inspector who accompanied PWs 6 and 7 has stated that when he entered the record room, he saw the accused and also seven others attacking PW 1 and another person and that the first accused brandishing a weapon uttered threatening words. He has also corroborated the evidence of PWs 6 and 7 regarding the injuries sustained by PW 6. It is, thus clear from the evidence of PW 13 that the first accused, third accused, Rajamani and other assailants were present in the record room with deadly weapons.
32. Learned counsel for the second accused contended that PWs 6, 7 and 13 did not even mention the name of the second accused. P.W. 13 has stated that the accused and seven others attacked the victims. Much reliance cannot be placed upon the omnibus statement of P.W. 13. As far as first accused is concerned, the evidence on record will show that P.W. 13 knows his identify. He has stated that he also filed another case in crime No. 243/93 against the first accused and that he also deposed in the said case. It is suggested to him that he initiated proceedings to detain the first accused under detention law. In the face of the above materials, it can be reasonably held that the evidence of P.W. 13 identifying the first accused does not suffer from any infirmity. As regards the third accused, it is in the evidence of the above witnesses that he was caught red-handed with the weapon.
33. The prosecution had also adduced satisfactory evidence to prove that the third accused and another were handed over to police witness P.W. 10. P.W. 10 the Head Constable has stated in his evidence that the weapons and two accused were handed over to him P.W. 13 and other constables. He has vaguely stated that he was informed that the names of the above persons are Perumal and Raghuraman. The said Raghuraman is the second accused in this case. It is not the version of P.Ws. 6, 7 and 13 that they apprehended the second accused at the scene of the occurrence. Therefore, the vague evidence of P.W. 10 is not entitled to any weight for holding that the second accused was found in the place of the occurrence. However, the evidence of P.W. 10 will show that the accused who were apprehended by P.W. 13 and the weapons were handed over to him. Thereafter, P.W. 14 the Investigation Officer arrested the above two accused at about 11.50 a.m. in the Court premises. He has stated that the weapons were also recovered under a mahazar Ex. P8. The sequence of events that occurred between 11 and 11.50 a.m. are clearly spoken to by P.Ws 6, 7, 10 and 13. But, it is contended on behalf of the accused that the weapons are not recovered at the place of occurrence and that it has to be held that there is no recovery at all. It is no doubt true that no mahazar was prepared at the place where the weapons were snatched from the hands of A3 and another accused. I am unable to accept the above contention of the accused. The circumstances under which the occurrence took place should be taken into account. The occurrence took place in a broad daylight that too inside the Court premises. A group of persons with deadly weapons were chasing the victims and that they entered with the weapons into the record room. There was commotion in the Court premises at that time. The Court staff and others who were present there became panic and ran helter skelter. In the above circumstances, one cannot expect the police officials to prepare the mahazar in the record room. The primary duty of the police officials who were present there was to apprehend the other assailants who were running from the scene of the occurrence. Therefore, the fact that the mahazar was not prepared for recovery of the weapons at the place of the occurrence cannot be a ground to reject the testimony of the above witnesses. It is also seen that the accused who were caught red-handed were remanded on the next day. Having regard to the manner under which the offence took place, the trivial or minor discrepancies in the evidence cannot be taken into consideration in assessing the overall evidence adduced in this case.
34. It is, thus, seen from the above evidence that the first accused has been properly identified by the witnesses. The third accused was caught red-handed at the place of the occurrence. But the materials on record are not sufficient to implicate the second accused with the offence. It is seen that the case is registered against 10 accused including the second accused. Inasmuch as, there are no materials to connect the second accused with the offence and as he was not properly identified by the witnesses, it is extremely unsafe to convict the second accused on the basis of the omnibus statement of P.W. 13.
35. It is contended by the accused that the prosecution failed to produce the mark the medical memo alleged to have been sent by PW 8. It is contended by the accused that the FIR itself should have been prepared after the due deliberations. P.W.8 has stated in his evidence that he received a complaint under Ex.P 24 from P.W. 1 and he registered the case and that he sent the injured to the hospital with medical memo. It is the case of the prosecution that P.W.6 was also treated by the Doctor P.W.4 along with P.W.I. The evidence of the Doctor P.W.4 will show that the injured P.W.I was examined by him at about 11.40 p.m. on the same day and that P.W.6 was examined at about 12.10 noon. P.W.8 himself has admitted that he prepared the FIR only after the injured were sent with medical memo and that he has prepared a single memo for the two injured.
36. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the medical memo would have contained the earliest information about the incident and that as the earliest information was not produced by the prosecution, it: is unsafe to place reliance upon the FIR registered after sending the injured to the hospital. The distance between the police station and the place of occurrence is about half a kilometer. The General Hospital is situate near the Court buildings. The evidence of PW 4 that he saw the injured P.W. 1 at about 11.40 a.m. on the same day cannot be brushed aside. It is no doubt true that, the prosecution failed to produce the medical memo. But, on that score alone, it cannot be readily inferred that the medical memo would have furnished earliest information about the commission of the offence. In the above circumstances, the non-production of medical memo would not affect the evidence of the police witnesses.
37. The discrepancy is in the evidence regarding the alleged memo are also pointed out on behalf of the accused. P.W.6 has stated that when he went to the police station, he saw that injured proceeding in an auto to the hospital and that P.W. 13 stopped the said auto and that he was also sent in the same auto to the hospital. P.W. 7 has also stated that P.W.6 was also sent by the Sub-Inspector P.W. 13 to the hospital. P.W. 13 has stated that when he reached the police station, he was informed that the injured were, being taken to the hospital and that he also took P.W.6 to the hospital. It is not clear whether P.W.6 was sent by P.W. 13 in the same auto in which the injured were taken to the hospital. There is also discrepancy regarding the preparation of the medical memo so far as P.W.6 is concerned. P.W. 8 has stated that he did not prepare medical memo for P.W.6. P.W. 13 has stated that he does not know who prepared the medical memo. P.W.7 has stated that he does not know who prepared the above memo. P.W.6 is also unable to say as to the name of the person who prepared the medical memo. The above discrepancies would not affect the prosecution case, inasmuch as it is clearly proved from the evidence of P.W.4 that the injured P.W. 1 was admitted at about 11.40 a.m. It is also proved that P.W. 6 was admitted and treated at 12.10 noon. In the above circumstances, the non-production, of the medical memo and the discrepancies regarding the fact as to who prepared the medical memo for P.W.6 would not materially affect the case of the prosecution.
38. It is, further, contended by the appellants that the injured took treatment in another hospital and that in the wound certificate, it. is stated that the injured sustained injuries by unknown persons. Exs. P17 and P18 are the certificates issued by Malar Hospital dated 30-1 -1993. It is stated in the above documents thus :
Patient alleged to have been assaulted by unknown persons at 11.30 a.m.
But, in Exs. P2 and P3, which were prepared on 29-1-1993, it is clearly stated as, “alleged to have been assaulted by known persons with a knife at 11.15 a.m.” The medical memo alleged to have been sent by the police station is also referred to in the above wound certificates Exs. P2 and P3. It is in the evidence of P.W. 9 that the injured P.W. 1 and another were admitted in the hospital on 29-1 -1993 and that they left, the hospital against their advice on their own accord on 30-1-1993. In the above circumstances, the fact that it was disclosed to Malar Hospital by the injured that they sustained injuries at the hands of unknown persons will not affect the information already furnished by them to P.W. 4 on the date of the incident.
39. It is pointed out by the appellants that the trial Court in paragraph 16 of the judgment has commented upon the investigation done by the police regarding the seizure of the weapons. But the Court has held that the above infirmity would not materially affect the case of the prosecution. As already stated, the circumstances under which the occurrence took place has to be taken into consideration while assessing the evidence of the witnesses regarding the seizure of the weapons and preparation of the mahazar.
40. It is no doubt true that the author of the FIR i.e. P.W. 1 does not support the case of the prosecution. However, he has admitted his signature found in the complaint. It is contended by the appellants that when P.W. 1 the injured himself has not implicated the accused it is not safe to convict the accused on the basis of the evidence of the police witnesses. In this context, it is also pointed out that another injured Manoharan was not examined. It is seen that no explanation is offered for the non-examination of another injured. As already stated, P.W. 1 sustained injuries inside the’ Court premises. He has, however mentioned the name of the first assailant mentioned in the FIR. Having regard to the fact that the assailants entered into the Court premises with deadly weapons and created terror inside the Court premises, the fact that P.W. 1 turned hostile cannot be a sole ground to reject the evidence of the police witnesses.
41. It is pointed on behalf of the first accused that the overt acts attributed against him will fall only under Section 506-II, IPC and that therefore, he should not have been convicted under Section 307, IPC. It is also contended on behalf of the third accused that it is not shown that he inflicted injuries either to P.W. 1 or P.W. 6. To attract Section 307, IPC it is not essential to prove that the victim sustained injuries. As already stated, the first accused and third accused among other assailants were found inside the record room. It is also proved that the assailants chased P.W. 1 into the record room with deadly weapons. But for the intervention of the police witnesses. PW 1 would have been butchered and in that event, accused 1 and 3 would be guilty for an offence of murder. In the above circumstances, 1 do not accept the contention of the appellants that accused 1 and 3 are not guilty of the offence under Section 307, IPC. It is also proved that the witnesses were restrained in the record room and that the police witnesses were prevented from discharging their duties. As already, stated, the evidence on record will clearly prove that accused 1, 3 and group of persons were found in possession of deadly weapons and that they chased the victim and that in the said incident, there was commotion in the Court premises. Having regard to the above facts and findings of the trial Court, that the accused 1 and 3 are guilty of the offence under Sections 148, 341 and 353 have to be upheld.
42. It is contended by the accused that the accused are in custody and that they have undergone substantial sentence and that therefore, the sentence already undergone is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The above contention of the appellants cannot be accepted, having regard to the manner under which the offence was committed. The offence was committed when the Court was about to function. The occurrence took place inside the Court premises in a broad daylight. The conduct of the appellants 1 and 3 in carrying the deadly weapons during working hours of the Court and chasing the victims and creating terror inside the Court, if taken into consideration. I have no hesitation in holding that accused 1 arid 3 are not entitled to any leniency at the hands of this Court. For the above reasons, I hold that the conviction and sentence imposed on accused 1 and 3 have to be upheld. As there are no materials to connect the second accused with the offence, he is entitled to be acquitted.
43. C.A. No. 49 of 1998.
In the result, the criminal appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the first appellant/accused are confirmed and he is directed to undergo the rest of the sentence. The conviction and sentence imposed on the second accused are set aside and he is ordered to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in any other case.
44. C.A. No. 317 of 1998.
In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the third accused are confirmed. The third accused is directed to undergo the rest of the sentence imposed on him.