IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04/02/2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM Criminal Appeal (MD) No.484 of 2003 Criminal Appeal (MD) No.687 of 2003 Criminal Appeal (MD) No.787 of 2003 and Criminal Appeal (MD) No.942 of 2003 Crl.Appeal (MD)No.484/2003 Vyahulam .. Appellant Vs. Inspector of Police Aaravyal Police Station, Devakottai .. Respondent (Crime No.10/97) Crl.Appeal (MD)No.687/2003 Sebastiammal .. Appellant Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police Aaravyal Police Station, Sivaganga District. .. Respondent (Crime No.10 of 1997) Crl.Appeal (MD)No.787/2003 1.Joseph 2.Paulraj 3.Karunanidhi 4.Arulanandhi .. Appellants Vs. Inspector of Police Aaravyal Police Station, Sivaganga District. .. Respondent (Crime No.10 of 1997) Crl.Appeal (MD)No.942/2003 1.Arulrai 2.Savarimuthu 3.Johnpeter 4.Amalanathan .. Appellants Vs. Inspector of Police Aaravyal Police Station, Sivaganga District. .. Respondent PRAYER Appeals filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 26.02.2003 made in S.C.No.20 of 1998 by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga. !Mr.M.Kumar ... for appellants/A1, A4, A6 and A7 in Crl.A.(MD)No. 787 of 2003. Mr.A.Padmanaban ... for appellant/A2 in Crl.A.(MD)No.484 of 2003 Mr.Ravi for M/s.R.Karthikeyan... for appellant/A5 in Crl.A.(MD)No.687 of 2003 Mr.P.Rathinam ... for appellants/A3, A8 to A10 in Crl.A.(MD)No.942 of 2003 Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan... for respondent in all Addl.Public Prosecutor the above appeals :JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was
delivered by T.SUDANTHIRAM,J.)
The appellants in all the appeals are the accused in S.C.No.20 of 1998 on
the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sivaganga. By judgment dated 26.2.2003 in S.C.No.20 of 1998, they stand
convicted and sentenced as follows:-
Charge
Rank of the accused
Conviction under Section/s
Sentence for each of the accused
1st
A1 to A10
148 IPC
2 years rigorous imprisonment
2nd
A1 to A10
449 IPC
2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment
3rd
A3
302 IPC
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, six months rigorous
imprisonment
4th
A1, A2, A4
302 r/w 34 IPC
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, six months rigorous
imprisonment
5th
A5 to A10
302 r/w 149 IPC
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default, six months rigorous
imprisonment.
6th
A4 & A5
307 r/w 34 IPC
Three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment.
7th
A1 to A3,
A6 to A10
307 r/w 149 IPC
Three years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3,000/- in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment.
8th
A4
324 IPC (2 Counts)
One year rigorous imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.2000/- for each
count, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
9th
A6
324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment.
10th
A7
324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment.
11th
A10
A8 & A9
324 IPC
324 r/w 34 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment.
12th
A3
A1 & A2
324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment.
13th
A4 to A9
324 r/w 149 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment.
14th
A1 to A7
324 r/w 149 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment.
15th
A7
326 IPC
(2 Counts)
Two years rigorous imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.2,500/-, for each
count, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
2. Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused have
preferred these appeals.
The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(i) The prosecution party and the accused party are all residents of
Mulligundu village. The prosecution party belong to Dalit Hindu community and
the accused party belong to Dalit Christian community.
(ii) PW.1 and others wanted to construct a Hindu Temple in the area where
they were residing. They also gave a requisition to the Sub-Collector seeking
permission to build a Hindu Temple. There was some vacant space in front of the
house of PW.1. That land belonged to the Government. Oral permission was given
and a small Temple was constructed. Near the house of PW.1, the first accused
and other accused were residing. Accused Nos.2, 7 and 8 are brothers. Accused
Nos.1, 6, 4 are the sons of A7. A3, A9 and A10 are sons of A8. All the accused
had objected to the construction of Temple that was constructed. Sub-Collector,
Tahsildar and the police visited at the place and they permitted PW.1 to set a
Temple near the house of PW.1. In order to set up a Temple, they constructed a
small stage near the house of PW.1
(iii) Two or three days later, on 2.7.1997, the police from Aravoyal
Police Station came to the house of PW.1 and stated that A5 gave a report
against PW.1 and others complaining that a sum of Rs.15,000/- was stolen and
hence, they wanted to enquire in the matter. PW.1 informed the police that most
of the persons had gone to attend their job and he said that he would appear
along with others in the evening at around 4.00 p.m.,. PW.1 did not go for job
and he applied for leave. PW.1 discussed with the wife, brother and others in
his house about the complaint given against him. At that time, PW.7 came to his
house and he wanted a sum of Rs.100/- from PW.1.
(iv) At about 10.30 a.m., Accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 entered into the house
of PW.1 through the front door. A3 was holding an axe and the other accused
were holding aruval. The other accused i.e. A4, A6 to A10 entered into the
house through back entrance and they were also holding aruval in their hands.
A3 attempted to attack PW.1 with the axe. PW.1’s mother, father, wife and PW.7,
all tried to prevent and at that time, the deceased Selvaraj rushed into the
house along with PW.5, PW.6 and PW.8. A3 instigated the other accused to
attack. A1 pushed down the deceased Selvaraj. The deceased Selvaraj fell
down. A2 sat on his back and instigated the others to attack. A3 attacked the
deceased with the axe repeatedly. The cut fell on the head of the deceased. A4
stamped the deceased. PW.9 rushed inside. He was attacked on his head by A7
with an aruval. PW.3 was attacked on her head by A4. A5 caught hold of PW.3.
At that time, PW.2 intervened and pulled PW.3, and the attack made by A4 fell on
PW.2. A4 also attacked once again on her hip. At that time, A1 also attempted
to attack PW.2 but it fell on the head of A4. PW.5 was caught hold by A8 and
A9. A10 attacked PW.5 on his head and left leg. At that time, PW.5 was caught
hold by A8 and A9. As such, the cut fell on A8. A3 also attacked PW.4 on the
right shoulder with an aruval. A3 also attacked PW7 on his right hand. PW.1
was caught hold by A1 and A2. As the axe fell on the ground, A3 got the aruval
from A.10 – Amalnath and attacked on PW.1’s head. A4 also attacked PW.8 with
the back portion of aruval. A6 attacked PW6 on his head. A7 attacked PW.9 on
his head. The accused had run away from the scene of occurrence. While running
A7 fell on the ground and he got up and ran away from the scene. The deceased
was unconscious and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Devakottai.
(v) PW.10 Doctor, examined the injured Selvaraj (deceased) and she found a
lacerated cut injury about 7 cms circular in the back of scalp (left side) and
she prepared Wound Certificate Ex.P.2. The opinion of PW.10 Doctor was that the
above injury is grievous in nature.
(vi) PW.10 also examined PW.1 and found (a) an incised wound about 7 cms
in length 1cm deep, transverse direction in the back of scalp right side, (b)
abrasion about 3 cms in shoulder area and she prepared Wound Certificate,
Ex.P.3. The opinion of the Doctor was that the above mentioned injuries are of
simple in nature.
(vii)PW.3 was also examined by PW.11 Doctor. PW.11 found (i) a cut injury
about 4 cms in the left side of forehead, (ii) Oblique cut injury 4 cms in
length in the base of right ring finger(iii) Cut injury about 4 cms tranverse in
direction below right scapula. She prepared Wound Certificate Ex.P.4. The
opinion of the Doctor was that the above mentioned injuries are of simple in
nature.
(viii) PW.2 was also examined by Doctor PW.11. PW.11 found (i) a cut
injury about 3 cms in length vertical in direction in the left eyebrow and (ii)
an abrasion 4 cms in length in the left side of back below scapula transverse in
direction. She prepared the Wound Certificate Ex.P.5. The opinion of the
Doctor was that the above mentioned injuries are of simple in nature.
(ix) PW.11 also examined PW.4 and she found a cut injury transverse in
direction 5 cms in length upper side of the right shoulder and an abrasion
about 7 cm oblique direction in the upper side of right scapula, and she
prepared Would Certificate Ex.P.6. PW.11 opined that the above mentioned
injuries are grievous in nature.
(x) PW.11 also examined PW.9 and she found a cut injury about 5 cms
vertical in direction in the left side of scalp just above forehead and she
prepared Wound Certificate Ex.P.7. She opined that the above mentioned injuries
are simple in nature.
(xi) PW.11 also examined PW.6 and she found (a) a cut injury about 8 cms
in length vertical in the right forearm 3 cm above right writ and (b) cut injury
about 2 cms length vertical in the middle of scalp and she prepared Wound
Certificate Ex.P.8. She opined that the above mentioned injuries are simple in
nature.
(xii) Then, PW.11 also examined PW.5 and she found (a) a cut injury about
4cms transverse direction in the back of scalp in the middle (b) another cut
injury vertical in direction 4 cms , 3 cms above 1st injury (c) a cut injury
vertical on the left leg 4 cms below left knee and (d) a cut injury 1 cm on the
right thigh 4 cm above right knee. She prepared Wound Certificate Ex.P.9. The
opinion of the Doctor is that the above injuries are simple in nature.
(xiii) PW.11 also examined PW.7 and she found a cut injury about 4 cms in
direction 5 cms below right elbow and she prepared the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.10. She opined that the above injury is of grievous in nature.
(xiv) PW.11 also examined PW.8 and she found an abrasion about 3 cms in
the right knee transverse in direction and she prepared the Wound Certificate
Ex.P.11. She opined that the above injury is of simple injury.
(xv)The deceased died in the hospital. PW.12 who was the Head Constable
of the Aravoyal Police Station during the relevant period of time, on receiving
information over phone from the hospital, went to the hospital and received
Ex.P1 complaint from PW.1 at about 12.15 p.m., and he came back to the Police
Station and registered a case in Crime No.10/97 under Sections 147, 148, 341,
324, 307 and 302 IPC.,. Ex.P.16 is the FIR.
(xvi) PW.17, Inspector of Police received a copy of the FIR and took up
investigation. He held inquest over the body of the deceased from 1.45 to 3.45
p.m., and recorded statements of the witnesses and he prepared an Inquest Report
Ex.P.33 and he also gave a requisition for conducting post-mortem.
(xvii) One Doctor Lakshmanan conducted post-mortem examination over the
body of the deceased. The said Doctor died in an accident before the
commencement of the trial. The said Doctor had issued Post-Mortem Report
Ex.P.12 wherein the following injuries are noted:-
Injuries:
1. An incised wound on parietal right 8 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm.
2. A punctured wound on right orbit outer aspect 1 cm in diameter x 2 cm
in depth.
3. An incised wound on Ear Pinna Right 5 cm x 2 cm x 1cm
Eye lids closed, Tongue inside, Jaws clenched,
Teeth 8 8
8 8
Internals
Injury No.1 Fracture of parietal (right) bone
present.
Heart Chambers empty. Cut Section of Heart, Liver, Kidney, Brain and
Lungs Pale. Stomach contains partly digested rice particles 300 ml present
intestine distended with Gas Bladder empty.
Brain lacerated in the parietal area right and clotted blood about 200 ml
present inside the dura.
Opinion as to cause of death:-
The deceased would appear to have died of Hypovolemic Shock due to Injury
No.1 and would appear to have occurred about 4 hours prior to Post-Mortem.
(xviii) PW.17 Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation went to
the scene of occurrence at about 4.30 p.m., and prepared an Observation Mahazar
Ex.P19 and Rough Sketch Ex.P34 and he recovered MO.7 wooden log and also MO.6
aruval under Mahazar Ex.P20. On 3.7.1997, he recorded the statement of the
witnesses who were in the hospital. At about 4.00 p.m., he arrested A4, A7 and
A8 who were taking treatment in the hospital. A7 also gave a complaint Ex.P31,
on the basis of which, a case was registered in Crime No.11/1997 under Sections
147, 148, 341, 323, 324 IPC and FIR Ex.P.32 was prepared.
(xix) PW.17, on coming to know that some of the accused had surrendered
before the Court, applied before the Judicial Magistrate for the custody and on
taking them to police custody, he recorded the confession statement of the
accused and in pursuance of the confession statement, MOs.5, 6 and 8 were
recovered. The case in Crime No.11/97 was investigated by one Inspector of
Police, Adinarayanan. After investigation, it was referred as a mistake of
fact. PW.17 after completing the investigation, he laid final report against
the accused on various charges.
3. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined PWs.1 to 18,
marked Exs.P1 to 46 and produced MOs.1 to 12.
4. The accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they
denied their complicity. As far as A2 is concerned, he filed a written
statement and let in evidence two witnesses viz., DW.1 and DW.2 and marked
Exs.D1 and D2. The Trial Court, after analysing all the materials, convicted
and sentenced the accused as already stated above.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the second accused, Mr.A.Padmanabhan,
submitted that though a counter case was registered in Crime No.11/1997 both the
complaints were not investigated by one and the same officer. Injuries on the
accused were not properly explained by the prosecution. The place of occurrence
in this case had been shifted. According to the prosecution, the occurrence
took place inside the house of PW.1, which is a very small room measuring 8 X
14. feet and as such, it is not possible for all the accused to be present
inside the house and attack so many persons and the prosecution also failed to
establish the place of occurrence by seizing the blood stained earth. Learned
counsel for the appellant draw our attention to the evidence of Doctor PW.10 who
had stated that he was informed by the victim that they were assaulted by nine
persons. But it is the definite case of the prosecution that 10 persons had
taken part and as such, there is a possibility of implicating the second accused
falsely at a belated stage. There was sufficient time for implicating the
second accused since FIR had reached the Judicial Magistrate only at 6.15 p.m,
that though it is said that FIR was prepared at 1.30 p.m.,. The Magistrate
Court was only 6 Kms distance from the Police Station.
6. The learned counsel further submitted that, the narration by witnesses
that A2 sat on the back of the deceased holding aruval in his hand, has not
inflicted any injury but had instigated only others to cut is very artificial.
The second accused was a retired official from the IAF and he had sent complaint
to the Tahsildar regarding the encroachment of land and the evidence of DW.1 and
DW.2 and the defence documents would lead to show that A2 has been deliberately
added as an accused.
7. Learned counsel, Mr.Rathinam, who is appearing for A3 submitted that
the FIR contains minute details which is to be suspected. A8 was inflicted
grievous injury, which remains unexplained. Though A3 is said to have attacked
the deceased repeatedly, the deceased had suffered only one injury. The weapon
said to have been recovered have not been sent for chemical analysis.
8. Learned counsel, Mr.Ravi, appearing for A5 submitted that A5 gave
Ex.P30 complaint to the police regarding theft against PW.5 and others and
therefore, she has been falsely implicated. The overtact attributed also was
only that she caught hold of PW.3.
9. Learned counsel, Mr.S.Senthil Murugan, appearing for A1,A4,A6 and A7
submitted that the injuries on the accused had not been properly explained. One
of the accused who sustained injury is said to have fallen in a pit to escape
from from there. The investigating officer has not noted any pit at the scene
of occurrence. The learned counsel reiterated about the delay in sending the
FIR to the Court. It was also pointed out by the learned counsel that there was
no common object for all the accused to attack the deceased who had intervened
at the time of occurrence.
10. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr.M.Daniel
Manoharan, submitted that there is no doubt with regard to the place of
occurrence even though blood stained earth was not seized by the police. It is
only a lapse on the part of the investigating officer. The place of occurrence
has been mentioned in Ex.P.1 the complaint given by PW.1 and all the witnesses
PWs.1 to 9 have categorically spoken about the place of occurrence and the
overt-act played by each of the accused.
11. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the FIR,
which was prepared at 1.30 p.m., on 2.7.1997 though reached the Court at 6.15
p.m. as per Ex.P28, history of the case had reached the hospital at 4.00 p.m.,
in which about 10 accused participating in the occurrence was mentioned. The
learned Additional Public Prosecutor further added that even in the FIR, the
injuries sustained by the accused were mentioned. PW.1 also explained about the
injuries sustained by the accused and the complaint given by A7 and the FIR
relating to them and final reports have been placed before the Court. Learned
Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the presence of A.2 was consistently
spoken by all the witnesses i.e. PWs.1 to 9.
12. We have considered the submissions made by all the parties and perused
the records.
13. As per the evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused party and
the victim party belong to different religions and there was a dispute regarding
the construction of a Hindu Temple. It is also evident that on the date of
occurrence, the police came to the house of PW.1 and informed that a complaint
has been given against PW.1 and others by A5 regarding theft of Rs.15,000/-.
This part of evidence let in by the witnesses shows that enmity was prevailing
among both the parties.
14. It is the further evidence of prosecution witnesses that on the date
of occurrence, all the accused had entered into the house of PW.1 and they
started attacking PW.1. At that time, the deceased and others had entered into
the house of PW.1 and then only the deceased and other witnesses were attacked
by the accused party. PWs.1 to 9 spoke about the occurrence and they are all
injured witnesses. They all gave evidence about the occurrence with the
specific overt-act of each of the accused. It appears from the evidence of
PW.10 Doctor before whom the victims had appeared and took treatment that
victims had informed the Doctor that they were attacked by definite nine
persons. There is a considerable doubt with regard to the participation of one
accused in the occurrence. Though the prosecution is very consistent through
the evidence of PWs.1 to 9, it is not possible for us to throw away from
consideration about this aspect. Except the presence of A.2, the presence of
all the accused, seems to be established by the prosecution. Even in the
counter complaint Ex.P.31 given, there is no reference to the second accused.
The overt-act attributed to the second accused seems to be very unnatural.
15. According to the prosecution, A2 sat on the deceased holding aruval
but he did not attack. From the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 and Exs.D1 and D2 and
on reading the written statement filed by A2, it raises a doubt with regard to
the presence of A2.
16. Even though presence of A2 is doubtful, the presence of all other
accused at the scene of occurrence is to be accepted. The accused entered into
the house of PW.1 and attacked PW.1 and others. Even the deceased and others
who entered into the house of PW.1 were attacked by the accused. All PWs.1 to 9
suffered injuries and they have given evidence about the attack by the accused
on them.
17. The contention raised by the defence counsel that the place of
occurrence is doubtful, is only to be rejected. Actually, it is fault on the
part of the Investigating Officer for not recovering blood stained earth and
sample earth to send them for analysis. Failure on the part of the
Investigating Officer cannot be taken advantage by the defence. On the other
hand, it is the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that the
occurrence took place only when PW.1 was inside his house and the accused
entered into the house and started attacking. In the Observation Mahazar
Ex.P.19 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.34, the place where the bloodstain was found is
shown. It is not the case of the accused also blood stains were found in any
other place.
18. The other contention of the defence counsel that injuries on the
accused not explained is also to be rejected. In this case, the counter
complaint given by A7 was duly received and registered by PW.12 and FIR Ex.P.32
was prepared. The case registered on the basis of the complaint given by A7 was
also investigated and final report was filed, which was marked as Ex.P38. There
is no suppression of material on the part of the prosecution on the basis of the
complaint given by the accused. A7 has also not denied his signature in Ex.P.31.
Even in Ex.P.1 complaint given by PW.1 the fact that three of the accused
sustained injuries have been mentioned and during the evidence it is also
explained as to how the accused have sustained injuries. Though it is suggested
by the defence that the accused were attacked in the open space, evidently, it
was not substantiated by any material. The origin of the occurrence is very
clear in this case through the evidence let in by the prosecution. It is only
the accused party who entered into the house of PW.1 with weapons and started
attacking.
19. While giving benefit of doubt to the second accused, we observe this.
The maxim, “falsus in uno, falses in omnibus” is not applicable in India. It
may be a rule of caution. It is always open to the Court to make an attempt to
separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. It is common phenomena
to eye-witnesses to give evidence mixed up with truth and falsity. Though one
or more persons had taken part in the occurrence, to implicate some more persons
falsely due to motive that prevails is common tendency. Therefore, it is the
duty of the Court to differentiate the accused from the available evidence
wherever it is feasible to separate the grain from the chaff, truth from
falsehood. It has to be appraised as to what extent, the evidence is worthy of
acceptance. Of course, the evidence has to be sifted with care. Only when it
is not possible to separate the truth from the falsehood as they are
inextricably mixed up up the whole evidence should be rejected. Unless this
process is not carried by counts, the administration of criminal justice would
be affected to a large extent by wrong acquittal allowing the real culprits to
escape. This principle makes us to give benefit of acquittal only to the 2nd
accused while the other co-accused are convicted relying on the same set of
evidence.
20. Though as per the above observation, it is established that except
A2, all the other accused have entered into the house of PW.1 and took part in
the occurrence, it is now to be decided that the accused 1 to 10 except A2, are
liable to what extent and under what provisions.
21. As far as the first charge is concerned, A1 to 10 were armed with
weapons, and it is proved except against A2 and therefore, the conviction under
Section 148 IPC against A1, A3 to A10 is confirmed but the sentence of two years
rigorous imprisonment is modified to one year rigorous imprisonment. As far as
the second charge against the accused is concerned except A2, the conviction
against A1, A3 to A10 under Section 449 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of two
years rigorous imprisonment is modified to one year rigorous imprisonment and
the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court is confirmed.
22. As far as the third charge is concerned, it is against the third
accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC. It is established by the
prosecution that it was only the third accused who attacked the deceased with
the axe and caused fatal injury. The conviction under Section 302 IPC and the
sentence awarded by the Trial Court confirmed.
23. With regard to the fourth charge, the conviction and sentence
imposed under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1, A2 and A4 are liable to be set
aside. It appears from the evidence when the accused entered into the house of
the deceased, the deceased was attacked by A3. As already pointed out, the
presence of the second accused is doubtful. As far as A1 is concerned, the
overt-act attributed to him is that he pushed the deceased down. Insofar as the
fourth accused, the overt-act attributed to him is that he had stamped the
deceased. Though it is stated that the fourth accused stamped the deceased,
there is no corresponding injury. As such, we are not ready to accept the
overt-act attributed in respect of the fourth accused. As already stated above,
as far as the attack on the deceased is concerned, it is only A3 who is
responsible and who had exceeded and acted. The common object of the accused at
the time of entry into the house of PW.1 was only to attack PW.1 and not the
deceased. The deceased, who had entered into the house of PW.1 and intervened
was attacked by A3. In the said circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be
given to all the accused except A3 in respect of attack on the deceased
Selvaraj. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on A1, A2 and A4 for
offence under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC is set aside. The fine amount, if paid,
shall be refunded to the respective appellants.
24. As far as the fifth charge is concerned, it is against A5 to A10 who
are convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 r/w 149 IPC. For the reasons
already mentioned above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused A5
to A10 are also set aside. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the
respective appellants.
25. Regarding the sixth charge, A4 and A5 were convicted and sentenced
under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC for attacking PW.3. According to Doctor, injuries
sustained by PW.3 is only simple injuries. Therefore, the conviction and
sentence under Section 307 r/w 34 IPC is set aside and instead, A4 and A5 are
convicted and sentenced under Section 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to
undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount imposed under Section
307 r/w 34 IPC shall be treated as one imposed under Section 324 r/w 34 IPC.
26. As far as seventh charge is concerned, A1 to A3 and A6 to A10 as
already observed, the conviction and sentence under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC are
set aside and instead, A1, A3 and A6 to A10 are convicted under Sections 324 r/w
149 IPC and they are sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and the fine
amount imposed under Section 307 r/w 149 IPC shall be treated as one imposed
under Section 324 r/w 149 IPC.
27. In respect of charges 8 to 15, the conviction and sentence imposed on
the respective accused/appellants except A2 stands confirmed.
28. As per this judgment, the present conviction and sentence are as
follows:-
Charge
Rank of the accused and conviction u/s.
Sentence
1st Charge
A1, A3 to A10 – 148 IPC
1 year rigorous imprisonment
2nd charge
A1, A3 to A10 – 449 IPC
1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment
3rd charge
A3
302 IPC
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5000/- in default, six months R.I.
6th charge A4 and A5 324 r/w 34 IPC
1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/-,in default, six months R.I.
7th charge A1, A3, A6 to A10 324 r/w 149 IPC
1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, six months R.I.
8th charge
A4
324 IPC (2 Counts)
One year rigorous imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.2000/- for each
count, in default, six months R.I.
9th charge A6 324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
R.I.
10th charge
A7
324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
R.I.
11th charge
A10 – 324 IPC
A8 & A9 – 324 r/w 34 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
R.I.
12th charge
A1 & A3
324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment.
13th charge
A4 to A9 324 r/w 149 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
R.I.
14th charge A1, A3 to A7 - 324 r/w 149 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, six months
rigorous imprisonment.
15th charge
A7 – 326 IPC
Two years rigorous imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs.2,500/- for each
count, in default six months imprisonment
29. Sentences are directed to run concurrently. The period of sentence
already undergone shall be given set off. The Trial Court is directed to take
steps to secure the presence of the accused/appellants and commit them to
undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.
30. In the result, in respect of the second accused, Criminal Appeal
(MD)No.484 of 2003 is allowed. Bail bonds executed by him stand cancelled and
fine, if already paid, shall be refunded to him. Insofar as Criminal Appeal
(MD)No.942 of 2003, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed in respect of A3 alone
except modification in sentence under 1st and 2nd charges and conviction and
sentence under 7th charge, and in respect of other accused, the appeal is partly
allowed. Criminal Appeal (MD)Nos.687 and 787 of 2003 are also partly allowed.
asvm
To
1.The Additional Sessions Judge-cum
-Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Sivaganga.
2.Inspector of Police
Aaravyal Police Station,
Devakottai.
(Crime No.10 of 1997)