{"id":186688,"date":"2007-12-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-12-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007"},"modified":"2015-07-27T03:43:39","modified_gmt":"2015-07-26T22:13:39","slug":"muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007","title":{"rendered":"Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\n\nDated : 14\/12\/2007\n\n\nCoram\nThe Honourable Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN\nand\nThe Honourable Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU\n\n\nCrl.A.(MD).No.313 of 2006,\nCrl.A.(MD).Nos.323, 328, 406, 451 and 539  of 2006\n\n\nCrl.A.No.313 of 2006\n\n\nMuthuramalingam\t\t...\tAppellant\n\n\nvs\n\n\nState by Inspector of Police\nKamuthi Circle\nKovilangulam Police Station\nRamanathapuram\t\t\t...\tRespondent\n\n\n\nCrl.A.No.323 of 2006\n\n1. Muthuramalingam\t\t\t\t\t\n2. Karnan alias Karunamurthy\n3. Boominathan\n4. Kalimuthu\n5. Krishnan alias Balakrishnan\n6. Malayandi\n7. Dhakshinamurthy\t\t...\tAppellants\n\n\nvs\n\n\nState rep. by Inspector of Police\nKovilangulam Police Station\nRamanathapuram\t\t\t...\tRespondent\n\n\nCrl.A.No.328 of 2006\n\n1.Muthumani thevar\n2. Ramamoorthy alias Velu thevar\n3. Gopal\n4. Shanmugavel thevar\n5. Kumaraiah thevar\n6. Palanivelu thevar\n7. Senthooran\t\t\t...\tAppellants\n\n\nvs\n\n\nState by Inspector of Police\nKovilangulam Police Station\nRamanathapuram\t\t\t...\tRespondent\n\n\nCrl.A.No.406 of 2006\n\n\nBoovalingam\t\t\t...\tAppellant\n\n\nvs\n\n\nState rep. by Inspector of Police\nKovilangulam Police Station\nRamanathapuram\t\t\t...\tRespondent\n\n\nCrl.A.No.451 of 2006\n\n1. Boominathan alias Chinnathambi Thevar\n2. Muthuramalingam\t\t\n\t\t\t\t...\tAppellants\n\n-vs-\n\n\nState by Inspector of Police\nKovilangulam Police Station\nRamanathapuram\t\t\t...\tRespondent\n\n\n\nCrl.A.No.539 of 2006\n\n\nJeyaraman\t\t\t...\tAppellant\n\nvs\n\n\nState by Inspector of Police\nKovilangulam Police Station\nRamanathapuram\t\t\t...\tRespondent\n\n\n\tCriminal Appeals against the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions\nJudge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram in S.C.No. 10\/96 dated 30.5.2006.\n\n\n!For Appellants\t\t...\tMr.N.Anantha Padmanabhan\nin C.A.No.313\/06\t\t\n\n\nFor Appellants\t\t...\tMr.C.Muthusaravanan\nin C.A.No.323\/06\t\tMr.K.Jegannathan\n\n\nFor Appellants\t\t...\tMr.K.Chellapandian Senior Advocate\nin C.A.No.328\/06\t\tfor Mr.S.Soundarapandian\n\n\t\t\t\tMr.A.P.Muthupandian\n\t\t\t\tMs.V.Jayarani\n\t\t\t\tMr.V.Kathirvelu\n\nFor Appellants\t\t...\tMr.Thirumalai Raj, Senior Advocate\nin C.A.No.406\/06\t\tfor Mr.S.Chandrasekharan\n\n\nFor Appellants\t\t...\tMr.Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, Sr.\nin C.A.No.451\/06\t\tcounsel for Mr.C.MeenakshiRama Prabu\n\nFor Appellants\t\t...\tMr.Shanmuga Sundaram, Sr. Advocate\nin C.A.No.539\/06\t\tfor Mr.S.Ravi.\t\t\t\t\n\n\n^For Respondent\t\t...\tMr.Raja Illango\nin all C.As.\t\t\tAddl. Public Prosecutor\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\t(The order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU,J)
\n\tThere were eight murders in one occurrence which includes the merciless
\nkilling of  a young and innocent child aged one and half years old. 17 persons
\nwere originally arrayed as accused in the First Information Report. During the
\ncourse of investigation it was found out that a total number of 21 persons
\nindulged in the above merciless and brutal murders, of whom, one person by name
\nChandran died even during the investigation. Final report was filed against 20
\npersons. Accused No.7, Murugan alias Kotari died during trial. Thus, Accused
\nNos.1 to 6, 8 to 20 faced the trial in S.C.No.10\/96 on the file of the
\nAdditional and District Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram.\n<\/p>\n
\t2. The deceased in the case were Eraniyan (D1), Thillai Natarajan (D2),
\nwho was the son of D1, Palaniammal (D3)  who was the wife of P.W.1, Sethuammal
\n(D4) who was the mother of D3, Annammal (D5) wife of P.W4, Nagarathinam (D6),
\nwife of D1 and mother of D2, Indira Gandhi (D7), who was the wife of A8 and
\nRajeswari (D8) daughter of D7 and A8. For the sake of convenience the deceased
\nshall be called as D1 to D8 respectively in this judgment.\n<\/p>\n
\t3. The appellant in C.A.No.313 of 2006 is Accused No. 20. The appellants
\nin C.A.No. 323 of 2006 are Accused Nos.8,9,10, 16, 17,18 and 19. The appellants
\nin C.A.No. 328 of 2006 are Accused Nos.1 to 4, 11, 13 and 15 and the appellant
\nin C.A.No. 406 of 2006 is Accused No.14. The appellant in C.A.No.451 of 2006 are
\naccused Nos.5 and 6 and the appellant in C.A.No.539 of 2006 is A12. During
\npendency of the appeal, the sixth appellant in C.A.No.313 of 2006, Malaiyandi
\nwho is arrayed as Accused No.18 died. Therefore, the appeals in respect of the
\nother accused are dealt with herein.\n<\/p>\n
\t4. P.W.1 is the husband of D3, P.W.2 is the son of P.W.1, P.W.3 is the son
\nof D1 and P.W.4 is the husband of D5 and uncle of P.W.1. The accused are also
\ninterrelated. P.Ws.1 to 4, D1 to D8 and one Krishna Thevar are the residents of
\nOsampottal Karisalkulam village viz., O.Karisalkulam Village in Ramnad District.
\nDeceased-7, Indira Gandhi was given in marriage to Accused No.8, Muthuramalingam
\nthree years prior to the occurrence.  Accused No.8, Muthuramalingam is the son
\nof Accused No.10, Boominathan. At the time of marriage, some jewels were
\npresented to her by the parents. But, subsequent to the marriage, her father got
\nthe jewels from Deceased 7 and sold away the same. Enraged over the same,
\nAccused No.8 drove Deceased-7 out of the matrimonial home. At that time, she was
\npregnant. She delivered a child at her parent’s home.  Even after that, Accused
\nNo.8 did not take her as well as the child back. Therefore, there was a village
\npanchayat held during the month of May 1993 in a public place. The accused party
\nas well as the prosecution party participated in the said panchayat to sort out
\nthe problem. In the said panchayat, there arose a quarrel which resulted in a
\nfree for all. In the said incident, the wife of Boominathan(A10) was done to
\ndeath. With reference to the said murder, a case was registered under Section
\n302 IPC and other provisions against P.W.1 Ramamurthy and 11 others. From that
\ntime onwards, the prosecution party and the accused party have become two
\nenimical groups.\n<\/p>\n
\t5. Subsequent to the above occurrence, there arose some dispute between
\none Rajendran, who was the brother of P.W.1 and Accused No.5, in respect of
\ntaking water for irrigation from a local kanmai. In connection with the same,
\nthere was a rioting and a case was registered against the said Rajendran and
\nothers under Section 307 IPC and other provisions. Because of these two
\noccurrences and the consequential criminal cases, enmity between the two groups
\nbecame very strong.\n<\/p>\n
\t6. On 9.2.1994 Rajendran was murdered near Kamuthi Panchayat Union office.
\nThe first appellant herein and others were accused in the said murder case.  On
\n10.2.1994, on completing the autopsy on the body of Rajendran, it was handed
\nover to P.W.1 and other family members at Kamuthi Government Hospital. P.W.1,
\nthe deceased 1 to 7 and one Krishna Thevar and few others cremated the body of
\nthe deceased Rajendran at Kamuthi itself. Thereafter, deceased 1 to 7, P.Ws.1 to
\n4, one Senthuran, Karuppasami and Krishna thevar were returning to
\nO.Karisalkulam Village in a bus. The deceased No.8 who was hardly one and half
\nyears old was on the lap of the deceased No.7. At about 4.30 p.m., they all got
\ndown at Thopadaipatti bus stop, from where they had to go on walk to their
\nvillage viz., O.Karisalkulam village. When they were nearing Karisalkulam branch
\nroad, all the accused suddenly emerged from nearby kanmai and bushes. They were
\nall armed with weapons like velsticks, sickles and knives. All of them were
\nfound running towards the deceased party. The accused Chandran (since deceased)
\nshot with gun. On seeing this, the deceased and other witnesses started to flee
\nto escape. P.W.1 escaped and hid himself behind the nearby bush.  P.W.2 was also
\nhid in a nearby Cholam field. But the deceased 1 to 8 could not escape. A1
\nMuthumani stabbed D1 Eranian with velkambu on his stomach;  A2, Ramamurthy
\nattacked the D4, D5 and D6 with velstick; A3 Gopal, attacked the D4, D5 and D6
\nwith velstick; A4 attacked the D4, D5 and D6 with velkambu; A5 attacked the D3
\nwith aruval on his right arm; A6 attacked the D4, D5 and D6 with velstick.  A7
\nattempted to attack P.W.3 with velstick; A8 stabbed the D7 with velstick on his
\nleft arm; A9 attacked the D1 repeatedly with aruval; A10 attacked the D4, D5 and
\nD6 with aruval; A11 stabbed the D2 on his stomach with velstick; A12 stabbed the
\nD3 with velstick on his stomach and chest, left thigh and other parts of the
\nbody; A13 attacked the D4, D5 and D6 with velstick; A14 attacked the D4, D5 and
\nD6 with velstick; A15 attacked the D2 with aruval on his head; A16 attacked the
\nD13 with aruval on his right hand; A17 attacked the D7 with aruval on his left
\nhand;  A18 attacked the D4, D5 and D6 with velstick;  A19 attacked the D4, D5
\nand D6 with aruval and A20 attacked the D4, D5 and D6 with velsticks. D1, D3 to
\nD8 had succumbed to injuries on the spot. The second deceased Thillai Natarajan
\nand Krishna Thevar were struggling for life. Senthuran and Karuppasami escaped
\nfrom the place of occurrence. P.Ws. 3 and 4 claimed that they also hid
\nthemselves in the nearby bushes and witnessed the entire occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t7. Because of the tension in the village due to murder of Rajendran on the
\nprevious day, there was police bandobust in the O.Karisalkulam Village. P.W.12
\nwas one such police constable engaged on the bandobust duty. P.W.13 was then
\ndriver of a police jeep.  P.W.12 heard the noise due to gun shot while he was in
\nthe village. He rushed towards the place of occurrence. He found Krishna thevar
\nand the second deceased Thillai Natarajan struggling for life and other deceased
\ndead.  He informed the police. Within a short while, P.W.13 was instructed by
\nsomebody from Kamuthi police station to rush to the Kamuthi police station with
\npolice van. Accordingly, he rushed to the Kamuthi Police station at 5.00 p.m.
\nThen, carrying few police constables he drove the vehicle to the place of
\noccurrence. He found P.W.12 already available at the place of occurrence. Then,
\nP.W.12, P.W.13 and P.W.3 took the second deceased Thillai Natarajan and injured
\nKrishna Thevar in the said police vehicle to the Government Hospital at Kamuthi.\n<\/p>\n
\t8. At 6.30 p.m. when P.W.5 Dr.Sundaram who was then Assistant Surgeon at
\nGovernment Hospital, Kamuthi was on duty, P.W.12 produced Krishna Thevar and
\nP.W.3 produced the deceased Thillai Natarajan.  P.W.5 admitted Krishna Thevar as
\nin patient and found following injuries on his body:-\n<\/p>\n
1. A cut injury on his right shoulder measuring 8 x 3 x 3 cms.\n<\/p>\n
2. A cut injury on the back of right shoulder measuring 4 x 2 x 2 cms.
\nEx.P2 is the accident register in respect of the Krishna Thevar (since died).\n<\/p>\n
\t9. When P.W.5 examined the second deceased Thillai natarajan, he found no
\nlife. He declared him dead and gave intimation to Kamuthi police station. Ex.P4
\nis the said intimation memo. He found the following injuries on the body of the
\ndeceased Thillai natarajan.\n<\/p>\n
1. Incised wound about 7 x 3 cmx (depth could not be ascertained) on the right
\nside of the abdomen in between umbilicus and right iliac crest.\n<\/p>\n
2. A cut injury 7 x 3 cms (depth could not be ascertained) on the centre of the
\nfronto parietel region. Skull bones were found fractured.\n<\/p>\n
3. A cut injury measuring 6 x 3 cms (depth could not be ascertained) on the back
\nof 6th lumbar region.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P3 is the accident register. Then he shifted the body of the Thillai
\nNatarajan to the mortuary.\n<\/p>\n
\t10. P.W.1 immediately after the occurrence proceeded to Kovilankulam
\nPolice station and preferred the complaint, Ex.P1. P.W.22, who was then Sub
\nInspector of Police at Kovilankulam Police Station on receiving Ex.P1,
\nregistered a case in Crime No.6 of 1994 under Sections 147, 148, 324, 307, 302
\nIPC and under Section 25(1) of Indian Arms Act. Ex.P34 is the First Information
\nReport. Then he forwarded Ex.P1 and P34 through P.W.15, a Police Constable to
\nthe jurisdictional Magistrate, who in turn received the same at 12.10 a.m. on
\n11.2.1994. The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station
\nis around 6 kms. P.W.22 then forwarded the case diary to P.W.23, the Inspector
\nof Police for investigation.\n<\/p>\n
\t11. Taking up the investigation, P.W.23, proceeded to the place of
\noccurrence at 7.00 p.m. He prepared the observation mahazar- Ex.P31 in the
\npresence of P.W.19 and another person by name Velayutham, who was then Village
\nAdministrative Officer. He also prepared a rough sketch showing the place of
\noccurrence which is marked as Ex.P33. Then, he conducted inquest on the body of
\nthe deceased Eranian from 8.00 p.m. and prepared a report Ex.P35 at 10.00 p.m.
\nHe recovered cigarrate pocket, match box and a cash of Rs.512\/- from the body of
\nthe first deceased. M.Os.3 to 7 are the said material objects. On the same day
\nbetween 10.15 p.m. and 11.00 p.m, he held inquest on the body of the deceased 4,
\nSethuammal and prepared the report Ex.P36; between 11.10 p.m. to 12.00 pm he
\nconducted inquest on the body of deceased 5, Annammal and prepared the report
\nEx.P37; between 00.15 a.m. and 1.00 a.m, he held inquest on the body of the
\ndeceased 7, Indira Gandhi and prepared the report Ex.P38; between 1.00 am. and
\n1.30 a.m. he held inquest on the body of the deceased 8, Rajeswari and prepared
\nthe report Ex.P39; between 1.45 a.m. and 2.45 a.m. he held inquest on the body
\nof the deceased 6, Nagarathinam and prepared the report Ex.P40; between 3 a.m.
\nand 4 a.m., he held inquest on the body of the deceased 3,  Palaniammal and
\nprepared the report Ex.P41. During inquest, he examined P.Ws.1, 4, Senthuran and
\nothers. Then he proceeded to the Government Hospital at Kamuthi and held inquest
\non the body of the deceased Thillai Natarajan between 4.45 a.m. and 6 a.m. and
\nprepared a report Ex.P42. During the said inquest, he examined P.W.3, Manoharan
\nand recorded his statement. At the same time, he also recovered blood stained
\nshirt belonging to P.W.3 Manoharan under a mahazar. M.O.8 is the said shirt. At
\n6.30 a.m., he recovered blood stained shirt of Krishna Thevar and the same is
\nmarked as M.O.9. P.W.23 forwarded the dead bodies of all the eight deceased for
\npostmortem.\n<\/p>\n
\t12. P.W.6, Dr.Rajasundaram, who was an Assistant Surgeon at Government
\nHospital at Paramakudi conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased
\nNagarathinam at 8.15 a.m. on 11.2.1994 and found the following injuries:\n<\/p>\n
(i) An incised wound of about 4 cm x 2 cm x 4 cm over the right chest just
\nlateral to the sterunum\n<\/p>\n
(ii) An incised wound of about 2 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm over the right of cut abdomen
\nwall just below the ribs.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) An incised wound of about 4 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm over the left hypochandrum
\njust below the ribs.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) An incised wound of about 10 cm x 4 cm x 4 cm over the lateral (nc) of left
\nfore arm including the wast visibel borax,\n<\/p>\n
(v) An incised wound of about 10 cm x 4 cm x (nc) over the left side of back
\njust below the lower (nc) of left scapula\n<\/p>\n
(vi) An incised would of about 4 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm over the left side of back
\njust below the previous wound.\n<\/p>\n
(vii) An incised wound of about 6 cm x 4 cm x 10 cm over the centre of the back
\njust above the pelvis bone.\n<\/p>\n
Ex. P5 is the postmortem certificate. The Doctor opined that  the death was due
\nto the injuries found on the body and he has further opined that the injuries
\nwould have been caused in the manner alleged by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t13. On the same day, i.e. on 11.2.1994, he conducted autopsy on the body
\nthe deceased 4, Sethuammal at 9.30 p.m. and found the following injuries:\n<\/p>\n
(i) An incised wound of about 5 cm x 2 cm x 10 cms over the left infra auxillary
\narea.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) An incised wound of about 4cm x 2 cm x 2 cm present over the left lois
\nrunning obliquely  upwards and laterally\n<\/p>\n
(iii) An incised wound of about 5 cm x 2 cm x 10 cm  present over the right
\ninfra scapular area running obliquely downwards and laterally.
\nEx.P6 is the postmortem certificate. He has opined that the death would have
\nbeen caused due to the injuries and the injuries would have been caused in the
\nmanner  alleged by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t14. P.W.8, who was a Civil Surgeon at Government Hospital at Paramakudi
\nconducted autopsy on the body of the deceased 7, Indira Gandhi on 11.2.1994 at
\n1.00 p.m. and found the following injuries
\nExternal injuries:\n<\/p>\n
(i) An incised wound, oblique in nature of about 4 cms x 2 cm x 10 cms depth
\nover the left infra axillary region\n<\/p>\n
(ii) A lacerated wound on the left arm of about 7 cmx 2 cm x 4 cm.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Three oblique placed incised wounds on the back of the left forearm of
\nabout 5 x 1\/2 x 1\/2; 4x 1\/2 x 1\/2; 3 x 1\/2 x 1\/2.\n<\/p>\n
Internal injuries:\n<\/p>\n
1.There were fracture of left 5th, 6th, 7th ribs on the medial ends.\n<\/p>\n
2. About 300 ml of blood and clots present in the left hemithorax.\n<\/p>\n
3. About 300 ml of blood present in the right hemithorax.\n<\/p>\n
4. There was a lacerated wound of about 8 cms x 1 cm x 2 cms depth over the
\nlower lobe of the left lung.\n<\/p>\n
5. Right lung congested.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P8 is the postmortem certificate and he has opined that the death would have
\nbeen caused due to the injuries sustained and the injuries would have been
\ncaused in the manner  alleged by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t15. On the same day, he conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased 8,
\nRajeswari at 2.05 p.m. and found the following injuries
\nExternal injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) An incised wound of about 5 x 2 x 2 cms on the left side of the abdomen with
\nintestines protruding out.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) An incised wound of about 5 x 2 x 2 cms on the right side of the abdomen
\nwith intestines protruding out.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) An incised wound of oblique in nature on the right side of the chest below
\nthe nipple of about 5x2x 8 cms depth.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) A lacerated wound of about 7 x 2 x 3 cms on the right side.\n<\/p>\n
(v) An incised wound on the left side back of about 5 x 2 x 5 cms.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) An incised wound on the left infra scapular area of about 3 x 1 x 2 cms.
\nInternal injuries:- There were fracture of right 3, 4, 5, 6 ribs. Liver : There
\nis an incised wound of about 4 x 1 x 1 cm on the right lobe of the liver.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P9 is the postmortem certificate. He has opined that the deceased would have
\nbeen died due to the injuries sustained and the injuries would have been caused
\nin the manner  alleged by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t16. On the same day, P.W.8 conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased
\n5, Annammal at 3.05 p.m. and found the following injuries:
\nExternal injuries:\n<\/p>\n
1.  An incised wound on the right infra clavicular area of about 4 x 1 x 6 cms\n<\/p>\n
2. An incised wound on the right leg of 1 x 1\/2 cm\n<\/p>\n
3. An incised wound below right knee joint of about 2 x 1 cm\n<\/p>\n
4. An incised wound on the centre of the back 3 x 1 x 3 cms with spine\n<\/p>\n
5. An incised wound of about 4 x 1 x 6 cms above the right gluteal region.\n<\/p>\n
6. An incised wound of about 5x 1 x 6 cm below right gluteal region.
\nInternal Examination:\n<\/p>\n
1. There were fracture of 1,2, 3 ribs on the right side.\n<\/p>\n
2. There was about 500 ml of fluid blood present in the right hemithorax.\n<\/p>\n
3. There is an incised wound of about 6 x 3 cms depth present on the right upper
\nand middle lobe of Heart chambers empty.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P10 is the postmortem certificate. He has opined that death would have been
\ncaused due to the injury to lungs and other vital organs and also due to shock
\nand hammorage.\n<\/p>\n
\t17. P.W.9, was a civil surgeon attached to the Government Hospital,
\nRamanathapuram. On 11.2.1994 at about 12.30 p.m., he held autopsy on the body of
\nthe deceased Palaniammal and found the following injuries:-
\nExternal injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) 5″ x 2″ x 2″ lacerated wound on the right fore arm\n<\/p>\n
(ii) 5″ x 2″ x 2″ lacerated wound on the right arm\n<\/p>\n
(iii) A deep lacerated wound over the left arm 5″ x 2″ x 2″.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) An incised wound on the left side of the chest just lateral to the sternum
\n2″ x 1″ x 4″.\n<\/p>\n
(v) An oblique incised wound below the lower aspect of left breast 2″ x 1″ x 1″.\n<\/p>\n
(vi) An incised wound over the right side of the back below the rib 2″ x 1″ x1″.\n<\/p>\n
(vii) An incised wound over right hypochondrium 5″ x 1″ x 4″.\n<\/p>\n
(viii) Another incised wound about 2″ x 1″ x 4″ over the right hypochondrium
\nbelow the previous wound.\n<\/p>\n
(ix) An incised wound about 2″ x 1″ x 4″ over the left lumbar area.\n<\/p>\n
(x)An incised wound 2″ x 1″ x 3″ over the lateral aspect of left thigh.\n<\/p>\n
(xi) An incised wound over the back of the right shoulder 1″ x 1″ x 1\/2″.\n<\/p>\n
(xii) Another incised wound about 1″ x 1″ x 1\/2″ just below the previous wound.\n<\/p>\n
(xiii) An incised wound about 2″ x 1″ x 1″ over the middle of the left thigh.
\nInternal injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
Heart:- An incised wound about 3 cm x 2 cm x 1 cm over the right ventricle with
\n1000 cc of blood in the thoracic cavity.\n<\/p>\n
Liver:- An incised wound about 4 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm over the right lobe of the
\nliver.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P11 is the postmortem certificate. He has opined that the death would have
\nbeen caused due to the injuries sustained and the said injuries would have been
\ncaused in the manner alleged by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t18. P.W.10, was an Assistant Medical Officer attached to the Government
\nHospital, Paramakudi. On 11.2.1994 at about 3.30 p.m., he conducted autopsy on
\nthe body of the deceased Thillai natarajan and found the following injuries:-\n<\/p>\n
(i) A transverse lacerated injury of size 6 cm x 4 cm x bone deep across the
\nfrontal bones on the scalp.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) An oblique stab injury with clean cut edges of size 6 cm x 4 cm x abdomen
\ndeep on the right side region of the abdomen. 2″ above the injunal legament
\nloops of small intestine lying outside through this wound.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) An ellipted shaped stab injury of size 5 cm x 3 cm x abdomen deep on the
\nback of right side near the vertebral column between L1 and L2 vertibral level.
\nA probe inserted through this injury reaches outside through the injury No.2.\n<\/p>\n
Ex.P12 is the postmortem certificate. He has opined that the death would have
\nbeen caused due to the injuries sustained in the vital organs and the said
\ninjuries would have been caused in the manner  alleged by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t19. P.W.11, Dr.Nalini Jayashree conducted autopsy on the body of the
\ndeceased Iranian on 11.2.1994 at about 3.30 p.m. and found following injuries on
\nthe body of the deceased Iranian :-\n<\/p>\n
(i) Spindle shaped stab injury of about 4 x 2 x 8 cms on the upper border of the
\nleft scapular region.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) Elliptical shaped cut injury of about 4 x 2 x 10 cm on the medial aspect of
\nleft scapular region.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) Spindle shaped stab injry of about 4 x 2 x 10 cm right side of post aspect
\nof chest 2cm below right scapular angle.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) Stab injury of about 4 x 3 x 30 cm right to the lower aspect of right
\nscapula on the post auxillary line. Bones seen through the wound.\n<\/p>\n
(v) The wound No 4 opens outside of ant aspect of abdomen just 4 cm below stanum
\nand middle of upper abdomen through which loops of small intestine seen.\n<\/p>\n
The Doctor has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and
\nhamarrage due to injury to vital organs like heart, liver and lungs.\n<\/p>\n
\t20. P.W.23 continuing the investigation, again proceeded to the place of
\noccurrence on 11.2.1994 at 7.15 a.m. He recovered blood stained earth and sample
\nearth from the place where D1 was done to death under a mahazar Ex.P22 in the
\npresence of P.W.21 and another witness. Similarly at 7.30 a.m, in the presence
\nof the same witnesses, he recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from
\nthe place where the deceased 2 – Thillai Natarajan was attacked under Ex.P23
\nmahazar. In the presence of the same witnesses, at 7.45 a.m. he recovered blood
\nstained earth and sample earth from the place where D4 – Sethuammal was attacked
\nunder Ex.P24 mahazar. At 8.00 a.m. he recovered blood stained earth and sample
\nearth from the place where the D5 Annammal was attacked under a mahazar Ex.P25
\nin the presence of the same witnesses. At 8.15 a.m. under a mahazar Ex.P26 in
\nthe presence of the same witnesses, he recovered blood stained earth and sample
\nearth from the place where the D7 Indira Gandhi was attacked. He also recovered
\na piece of sweater belonged to the D8 – Rajeswari. He also recovered ear stud
\nfrom the place under the same mahazar. At 8.45 a.m. he recovered blood stained
\nearth and sample earth from the place where the D6 Nagarathinam was attacked
\nunder Ex. P27. At 9.00 am., he recovered sample earth and blood stained earth
\nfrom the place where the D3 Palaniammal was attacked under Ex.P28 mahazar. Then
\nhe examined few more witnesses including P.W.12 Balakrishnan and P.W.13 Sadiq
\nHameed. He examined the driver of MPTC bus and conductor Ganesan in which the
\ndeceased lastly travelled from Kamuthi. He arranged to take photographs of the
\nplace of occurrences and the dead bodies.\n<\/p>\n
\t21. On 20.2.1994, P.W.23 arrested A5 Boominathan, A17 Krishnan @
\nBalakrishnan and A20 Muthuramalingam. On such arrest, A5 Boominathan volunteered
\na confession and the same was reduced into writing in the presence of the
\nwitnesses. In the said statement, he disclosed about the place where he had
\nhidden 7 aruvals, 10 velsticks, a toy gun and 3 knives. Ex.P29 is the admissible
\nportion of the said statement. In pursuant to the same, he took P.W.23, P.W.19
\nand another witness and produced M.O.30 (7 aruvals), M.O.31 (3 knives) and
\nM.O.32 (10 velsticks) and also produced M.O. 33 (toy gun).  On 24.2.1994, five
\nmore accused surrendered before the Court. During investigation he had recovered
\nM.Os.34 to 69 from the bodies of the deceased. P.W.23 got custody of accused 11
\nKumaraiah alone  by means of an order of the Court. While in such custody, he
\nvolunteered a confession and the same was duly reduced into writing. But no
\nrecovery was made on such confession. In due course, other accused also
\nsurrendered before the Court. P.W.23 continued investigation, examined Doctors,
\ncollected medical reports and made arrangements for sending the material
\nobjections for chemical examination. Finally he laid charge sheet against the
\naccused under Section 147, 148, 324, 506(ii), 307 and 302 read with 34 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
\t22. The trial court on considering the materials framed the following
\ncharges against appellants.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.1 :\n<\/p>\n
\t\tAgainst all the accused under Section 148 IPC.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.2:\n<\/p>\n
Against A1 to A6, A9, A10, A11 to A13, A15, A16, A18 to A20 under Section 302
\nreadwith 34 IPC in respect of murder of the deceased 1 Eranian, the deceased 2
\nThillai Natarajan, deceased 3 Palaniammal, deceased 4 Sethuammal, deceased 5
\nAnnammal and deceased 6 Nagarathinam.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.3 :\n<\/p>\n
Against A8 and A17 under Section 302 readwith 34 IPC (2 counts) in respect of
\nmurder of D7 Indira Gandhi and D8 Rajeswari.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.4 :\n<\/p>\n
Against A1 to 6,A 9 to 13, A15, A16, A18 to 20 under Section 302 read with 149
\n(7 counts) and against A 8 and 17 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC (6 counts)<\/p>\n
Charge No.5 :\n<\/p>\n
Against A7, A14 and A15 under Section 307 IPC in respect of attempt on the life
\nof Krishna thevar.\n<\/p>\n
Charge No.6 :\n<\/p>\n
Against A1 to A13 and A16 to A20 under Section 307 read with 149 IPC in respect
\nof the attack made on Krishna thevar and Manoharan P.W.3.
\nCharge No.7 :\n<\/p>\n
Against A1 to A6,A 8 to A20 under Section 307 read with 149 IPC in respect of
\nthe attack made on Krishna thevar and P.W.3 Manoharan.\n<\/p>\n
Charge NO.8:\n<\/p>\n
Against A1 to A20 under Section 307 read with 34 IPC in respect of the attempt
\non the life of Krishna thevar and P.W.3 Manoharan.\n<\/p>\n
\t23. Since the accused pleaded not guilty they were put on trial. During
\npendency of trial, A7 Murugan @ Kotari died. So, accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 20
\nfaced the trial.\n<\/p>\n
\t24. During trial, on the side of the prosecution, 23 witnesses were
\nexamined, 45 documents were exhibited and 69 Material Objects  were  marked.
\nWhen the accused were questioned in respect of the incriminating evidences
\nagainst them, they denied the same. They have not chosen to examine any of the
\nwitness or exhibit any document on their side.\n<\/p>\n
\t25. Having considered the materials available on record, the trial court
\nhas found the accused guilty and sentenced them as detailed below:-\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
—————\n<\/p>\n
Sl. No.\tAccused\t\t\tConviction \t\tSentence\n<\/p>\n
——————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
—————<\/p>\n
\n\n1. \tA1 to A6 and A8 to A20\t\tu\/s 148 IPC\t\tRI for one year\n\n2. \tA1 to A6 , A9 to A13,  \t\tu\/s 302 r\/w\t\tImprisonment\n\tA15, A16, A18 to A20\t\t34 IPC\t\t\tfor life\n\n3. \tA8 and A17\t\t\tu\/s 302 r\/w\t\tImprisonment\n\t\t\t\t\t34 IPC (2 counts)\tfor life for each\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcount.\n\n4. \tA1 to A6, A9 to A13, \t\tu\/s 302 r\/w\t\tImprisonment\n\tA15, A16, A18 to 20\t      149 IPC (7 counts)\tfor life for each\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcount.\n\n5.\tA14\t\t\t\t\tu\/s 302 r\/w\t\tImprisonment\n\t\t\t\t\t      149 IPC (8 counts)\tfor life for each\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcount.\n\n6.\tA8 and A17\t\t\t\tu\/s 302 r\/w\t\tImprisonment\n\t\t\t\t\t      149 IPC  (6 counts)\tfor life for each\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tcount.\n\n7. \tA14 and A15\t\t\tu\/s 307 IPC\t\tRI for 10 years\n\n8.\tA1 to A6, A8 to\t\t\tu\/s 307 r\/w\t\tRI for 10 years\n\tA13 and A16 to A20\t\t149 IPC\n\n<\/pre>\n
——————————————————————————–\n<\/p>\n
————-\n<\/p>\n
\t26. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.  Accused 1 to 6,
\n8 to 20 were acquitted of charge under Section 307 read with 149 IPC and 307
\nread with 34 IPC. Accused 1 to 6 and 8 to 20 were acquitted of the charge under
\nSection 307 readwith 149 IPC and 307 read with 34 IPC. Challenges the above
\nconviction and sentence, the appellants have come forward with the above
\nappeals.\n<\/p>\n
\t27. During the pendency of these appeals, A18, who is the sixth appellant
\nin C.A.No.323 of 2006 died and so, only in respect of accused 1 to 6, 8 to 17
\nand 19 and 20 these appeals are now dealt with.\n<\/p>\n
\t28. The learned senior counsel Mr.R.Shanmuga Sundaram,  the learned senior
\ncounsel appearing for some of the accused would contend that since  in this case
\nthere are large number of deceased and large numbers of accused, there is every
\npossibility of false implication.  Therefore, the evidence of the prosecution
\nwitnesses should be very closely scrutinised. Yet another reason stated by the
\nlearned senior counsel is that since the prosecution witnesses are closely
\nrelated to the deceased and highly enemical towards the accused, their evidences
\nrequire close scrutiny.  He would add that if such a test of close scrutiny is
\napplied, it would be obvious that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who claimed to be
\neyewitnesses cannot be believed at all. He would further contend that the
\noriginal information passed on to the police which brought P.W.12 and other
\npolice personnel to the place of occurrence would naturally be a true version
\nand the same would be the earliest version. He would contend that such earliest
\ninformation has been suppressed by the prosecution and in its place Ex.P1 has
\nbeen substituted. He would further submit that though Ex.P1 is stated to have
\nbeen given at 5.30 p.m. on 10.2.1994, the same has reached the hands of the
\nlearned Magistrate only at 12.10 a.m. on 11.2.1994. Since, according to him,
\nthere is no plausible explanation coming forth from the prosecution, the
\nunexplained delay would create lot of doubts in the case of the prosecution.
\nSince there are materials to infer that Ex.P1 would have been prepared after
\nprolonged deliberation, the same would collapse the entire case of the
\nprosecution, the learned senior counsel  contended. He would further submit that
\nall eight murders would not have happened at one and the same place. He would
\ntake us through  the evidence of P.W.12, wherein he has stated that he saw only
\nthree bodies strewed at the place of occurrence when he had gone there first. On
\nthe basis of the said evidence, the learned senior counsel would submit that
\nothers would have been killed at some other place and not as it is stated by the
\nprosecution. He would further submit that the investigation has not been done
\nproperly in this case to find out the truth. He placed strong reliance on the
\nevidence of P.W.23, wherein P.W.23 has admitted that police sniffer dog was
\nbrought to the place of occurrence. From that he would submit that the said fact
\nwould go to establish that the assailants were not at all known and that is why
\nin order to find out some clue in respect of the assailants, the police sniffer
\ndog was summoned to the place of occurrence. He would further submit that P.W.2
\nwas not examined during inquest and thus in the absence of any explanation for
\nhis non examination during his inquest, it can safely concluded that he was put
\nup later on as an eyewitness.  He would further add that the name of P.W.3 does
\nnot find place in the complaint and therefore, his presence at the place of
\noccurrence cannot be true.  The learned senior counsel would further submit that
\nthe names of Accused 18 to 20 did not find place in the First Information Report
\nand as such, he would contend that they have been falsly implicated as accused
\nat a later point of time.The non examination of driver and conductor of the bus
\nand also non production of records like invoice book and ticket book of the bus
\nis serious lapse on the side of the prosecution. He would rely on the judgment
\nof the Honourable Supreme Court  reported in (1991) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 304
\n(RANJIT SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH),<\/a> 2005 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI)
\n1121 (KAMALANATHA v. STATE OF T.N.)  and  a judgment of this court reported in
\n2000-1-L.W.-(Crl) 408 (SAMUDRAPANDI AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF
\nPOLICE ETC.,).\n<\/p>\n
\t29. Mr.Chellapandian, the learned senior counsel appearing for some of the
\naccused submitted that a reading of First Information Report which is a lengthly
\ndocument would naturally create a doubt since the same is highly artificial and
\nthe same contains all minute details about the occurrence. He would further add
\nthat so far as Accused 15 is concerned, though it is stated that he caused
\ninjury on Krishna Thevar on his wrist, correspondingly there was no medical
\nevidence showing any injury on the wrist.  Thus, according to the learned senior
\ncounsel, medical evidence does not support the case of the prosecution in so far
\nas Accused 15 is concerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t30. Mr.Gopalakrishna Lakshmana Raju, the learned senior counsel appearing
\nfor Accused 5 and 6 would contend that so far as Accused 5 is concerned, there
\nis no specific overtact attributed against him and his presence alone has been
\nspoken to which according to him, would not be sufficient to convict him. In so
\nfar as Accused 6 is concerned, the learned senior counsel would contend that
\nP.W.3 alone would speak about his overtact. Even that part of the evidence is
\nonly an after thought since the same is not found in his statement made during
\ninvestigation .  He would further add that P.W.2 was staying at a distant place
\nstudying in a school and therefore, he would not have had  occasion  to  be
\npresent along with others  at the crucial time of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t31. The learned senior counsel Mr.Thirumalai Raj appearing for Accused 14
\nwould submit that in respect of Accused 14 there is no overtact at all
\nattributed by any of the eyewitnesses.  P.W.1 alone has stated that he cut
\nKrishna Thevar. But there was no injury found by the Doctor on Krishna Thevar to
\ncorroborate the said version. Thus, according to him, the medical evidence does
\nnot corroborate the eyewitness account.\n<\/p>\n
\t32. Ms.Jayarani, the learned counsel appearing for Accused 11 would submit
\nthat though P.W.1 to 3 have spoken to about his presence and also about his
\novertacts, their evidence cannot be believed. Her main contention is that
\nAccused 11 Kumaraiah was the Ex-President of the village. Due to  previous
\nmotive, he has been falsely implicated.\n<\/p>\n
\t33. Mr.Kathirvelu, the learned counsel appearing for Accused 13 would
\nsubmit that in so far as Accused 13 is concerned, except his presence, no
\nwitness has stated anything about him at all and therefore, he is entitled for
\nacquittal. According to him, though his name  finds a place in the First
\nInformation Report, in Court no witness has stated anything about him, except
\nhis presence.\n<\/p>\n
\t34. Mr.K.Jeganathan, the learned counsel appearing for A 17 and A19 would
\nsubmit that though P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken to about his overtacts, considering
\nthe fact that A 17 hails from a different village and had no relationship with
\nthe rest of the accused, his presence and participation in the occurrence could
\nbe doubted and so he may be acquitted. In so far as A 19 is concerned, he
\ncontended that his name does not find a place in the First Information Report.
\nBut he was implicated as an accused only at later point of time. It is not as if
\nP.W.1 does not know about the identity of A19. Therefore, according to the
\nlearned counsel, non mentioning of the name of the A19 in the First Information
\nReport is a very strong circumstance in favour of the accused that he was not
\npresent at the time of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t35. Mr.Anandapadmanabhan, the learned counsel appearing for A20 would
\nsubmit that the name of A20 does not find a place in the First Information
\nReport. Even during inquest, P.Ws.1 to 3 did not make any mention about the
\npresence of A20 at the place of occurrence.  It was only P.W.4, who implicated
\nhim for the first time. The learned counsel would submit that it is nothing but
\nan after though on the part  of PW4 in order to wreck vengence. He would also
\nfurther submit that the medical evidence does not corroborate. He would further
\npoint out that P.W.4 did not know the name of A20. Admittedly, there was no test
\nidentification parade. Therefore, identification of A20 made for the first time
\nin Court by P.W.4 is not at all acceptable.\n<\/p>\n
\t36. Mr. Muthupandian, the learned counsel appearing for A2 to A4 and
\nMr.C.Muthusaravanan, the learned counsel appearing for A8, A9, A10 and A16 would
\nadopt the arguments advanced by the rest of the learned counsel.\n<\/p>\n
\t37. Mr.Raja Ilango, the learned State Additional Public Prosecutor would
\nsubmit that the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who are all eyewitnesses to the
\noccurrence is trustworthy. According to him, it is quite natural for all the
\ndeceased, Krishna thevar and P.Ws.1 to 4 to have gone together for funeral of
\nRajendran. It is also quite natural for all to return in the evening together.
\nThere is evidence that all of them came in the same bus and got down at
\nThopadaipatti bus stand and proceeded towards their village on walk. Since
\nP.Ws.1 to 4 escaped and hid themselves in the nearby places, they are unhurt,
\notherwise they would have also tasted the same fate of the deceased.  He would
\nsubmit that absolutely there is no reason whatsoever to disbelieve the presence
\nof P.Ws.1 to 4 in the place of occurrence and to discard their evidence.\n<\/p>\n
\t38. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that
\nP.W.12 who was  on a bandobust duty in the village had rushed to the place of
\noccurrence immediately on hearing the noise due to gun shot. P.W.13 also has
\ncome there immediately thereafter. They along with P.W.3 have taken Krishna
\nthevar and the D2 – Thillai Natarajan to the hospital and thereupon admitted
\nthem in the hospital immediately.   The evidence of P.Ws.12 and 13 would go to
\nfurther establish the place and time of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t39. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that
\nthough the First Information Report is a lengthly document, that by itself would
\nnot raise any inference that it is a concocted document. Absolutely, there is no
\ndelay whatsoever in preferring the complaint and forwarding the same to the
\nCourt. Therefore, hardly there is no reason to hold that the First Information
\nReport is a concocted document, so as to disbelieve the entire case of the
\nprosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\t40. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that
\nthough there are certain defects in the charges, in view of the saving provision
\ncontained in Section 215 Cr.P.C, this Court may sustain conviction of the
\naccused under appropriate penal provisions by modifying the judgment of the
\nlower court.\n<\/p>\n
\t41. We  have considered the rival contentions and also carefully perused
\nthe records.\n<\/p>\n
\t42. Admittedly on 9.2.1994, the brother of P.W.1, Rajendran was murdered
\nat Kamuthi near the panchayat union office. There was a case registered against
\nthe accused 1 to 6, 8, 10, 13 and few others. Prior to that, one Thinnammal, who
\nbelonged to the accused group was done to death and there was a case of murder
\nregistered against the prosecution party and the same was pending. There was
\nalso an attempt to murder case registered against the deceased Rajendran viz.,
\nthe brother of P.W.1 and others on the complaint of the first accused herein.
\nThe defence has not disputed the pendency of these criminal cases against the
\nrespective parties. Thus, the motive projected by the prosecution stands proved
\nas the same has not been disputed at all and the said motive would go to
\nestablish that there were two groups in the village one headed by A8
\nMuthuramalingam and other headed by P.W.1 and his brother Rajendran.\n<\/p>\n
\t43. There is no controversy that on 10.2.1994, the body of Rajendren who
\nwas killed on 9.2.1994 was cremated. It is quite natural that the relatives of
\nthe deceased Rajendran would have come to Kamuthi to attend the funeral.  P.Ws.1
\nto 4 and deceased 1 to 8 are either family members or closely related to the
\ndeceased Rajendran. Therefore, it is quite natural for deceased 1 to 8 and
\nP.Ws.1 to 4 and Krishna thevar to have attended the said funeral at Kamuthi. It
\nis also not in controversy that from Kamuthi one has to come by bus to
\nThopadaipatti bus stop and from there one has to go on walk to O.Karisalkulam
\nvillage. The D1 to D8, P.Ws.1 to 4, Krishna thevar and few others who were
\nreturning after the funeral had come by a pubic service bus and got down at the
\nsaid bus stop. Though the said fact is disputed by the defence, we do not find
\nany material to disregard the prosecution case that all the eight deceased,
\nP.Ws.1 to 4 and Krishna thevar and others were proceeding towards their village
\ntogether. In our considered opinion, the presence of P.Ws.1 to 4 at the place of
\noccurrence has been clearly established.\n<\/p>\n
\t44. It was contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.2
\nwas then a student studying in a higher secondary school at Abiramam village
\nwhich is a far off place from the place of occurrence and therefore, his
\npresence at the place of occurrence at the crucial time cannot be true. But a
\nperusal of evidence of P.W.2 would go to show that he is the brother’s son of
\nRajendran. Therefore, it is quite natural for him to have come for the funeral.
\nThe next contention of the learned counsel is that P.W.1 was not examined either
\nat the place of occurrence during inquest made on the bodies of D1, D3 to D8 or
\nin the hospital during the inquest made on the body the D2 Thillai Natarajan. He
\nwas examined only on 11.2.1994. According to the learned counsel, had it been
\ntrue that he was one among the eyewitnesses, either he would have been examined
\nat the place of occurrence during the inquest of the D1, D3 to D8 or in the
\nhospital during inquest held on the body of the deceased Thillai Natarajan.
\nThus, the presence of P.W.2 is doubtful. But we are not persuaded by the said
\nargument. Admittedly, P.W.2 was examined on 11.2.1994 at 9.00 a.m. at the place
\nof occurrence. He was hardly 16 years old. Since there were number of deceased
\nwho were all his relatives, there is every possibility for him to engage himself
\neither going to the hospital or inform the relatives etc. It is not as if that
\nhe was not examined for number of days. As it is seen from the evidence of
\nP.W.23, he was examined on 11.2.1994 itself. Therefore, it cannot be construed
\nto be a long delay so as to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 and his presence.
\nThus, the reasons stated by the learned counsel to disbelieve the presence of
\nP.W.2 at the place of occurrence has no force.\n<\/p>\n
\t45. The next contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that
\nP.W.3 was not examined during inquest conducted on the bodies of D1, D3 to D8.
\nHad it been true that he was one among the eyewitnesses, he would have been
\nexamined during the said inquest, the learned counsel contended. On this score,
\nthe learned counsel would submit that P.W.3 was put up as  eyewitness at later
\npoint of time. But a perusal of the evidence of P.W.23 would go to show that
\nP.W.3 was examined during the inquest conducted on the body of the deceased 2
\nThillai Natarajan. P.W.3 is the son of the D1 – Eranian and D6 – Nagarathinam.
\nKrishna thevar was also related to him. After the occurrence, according to him,
\nhe found Krishna thevar and Thillai Natarajan struggling for life. Therefore, he
\nalong with P.Ws.12 and 13 had taken them to the hospital.  P.W.3 has clearly
\nstated that he was in the hospital since his brother Thillai Natarajan was
\ndeclared dead by the Doctor. There is nothing strange on the part of P.W.3 to
\nstay in the hospital as his brother Thillai Natarajan was declared dead. Thus,
\nnon examination of P.W.3 during inquest held on the bodies of deceased 1 and 3
\nto 8 is hardly matter. He has been duly examined during the inquest held on the
\nbody of the deceased Thillai Natarajan without any delay. Therefore, in our
\nconsidered opinion, the non examination of P.W.3 during the inquest of D1, D3 to
\nD8 is not at all a flaw in the prosecution case so as to doubt the very presence
\nof P.W.3 at the place of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t46. The learned senior counsel Mr.Shanmuga Sundaram appearing for some of
\nthe accused pointed out that in Ex.P4 intimation memo sent by the Government
\nHospital about the death of Thillai Natarajan, there is no mention made that he
\nwas brought to the hospital by P.W.3.  On this strength, the learned senior
\ncounsel would contend that the evidence of P.W.3 that he had gone to the
\nhospital taking the D2 Thillai Natarajan and Krishna thevar for admission cannot
\nbe true.  The learned senior counsel, referring to the entries made in Ex.P5,
\nthe accident register relating to Krishna thevar, would point out that in Ex.P5,
\nthere is no mention about the name of P.W.3.  It contains only the name of
\nP.W.12 as a person who had brought him to the hospital. Similar entry is found
\nin Ex.P6, the accident register relating to Thillai Natarajan also.  Relying on
\nthese two documents, the learned senior counsel would submit that P.W.3,
\nManoharan would not have been either present at the place of occurrence or gone
\nto the hospital. The said contention of the learned senior counsel is liable to
\nbe rejected in view of Ex.P3 and the evidence of P.W.5 through which, it has
\nbeen established that the D2 Thillai Natarajan was brought to the hospital at
\nKamuthi at 6.20 p.m. on 10.2.1994 by P.W.3. It has been more specifically stated
\nthat he was accompanied by ‘Manoharan – brother’.  There is no dispute that it
\nis only P.W.3, who is the brother of Thillai Natarajan. This is a very strong
\npiece of evidence to hold that P.W.3 Manoharan would have been present at the
\nplace of occurrence and that is why he had the occasion to take Thillai
\nNatarajan to the hospital at the earliest point of time i.e. at 6.20 p.m.
\nitself.  Of course in Ex.P2, the name of P.W.12, Balakrishnan alone has been
\nmentioned as the person who had brought Krishna thevar to the hospital. It is
\nthe case of the prosecution itself that P.W.12 Balakrishnan and P.W.13 Shahul
\nHameed and P.W.3, Manoharan took Krishna thevar and the deceased 2 Thillai
\nNatarajan to the hospital. In view of the said fact, we are not able to find any
\nforce in the argument of the learned senior counsel that P.W.3 would not have
\nbeen present at the time of occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t47. The learned senior counsel would further submit that P.W.4 also would
\nnot have been present at the place of occurrence. He would submit that the D5
\nAnnammal is the wife of P.W.4. He also happens to be the uncle of P.W.1. Had it
\nbeen true that his wife D5 Annammal was killed in his very presence, he would
\nnot have been a silent spectator and hiding himself. But we are not able to get
\nourselves persuaded by the said argument. The scrutiny of the evidence of P.W.4
\nwould go to show that he deposed in a very natural manner. He has not claimed
\nthat he has seen the attack made on the every person. He has only spoken about
\nA18 Malaiyandi and A17 Krishnan. He has further stated that he witnessed the
\nentire occurrence from a near by kanmai where he was hiding himself.  His
\nevidence in our considered opinion does not suffer from any infirmity. For all
\nthese reasons, we have no doubt that P.Ws.1 to 4 would have been present and
\nwitnessed the occurrence.\n<\/p>\n
\t48. Yet another contention of the learned counsel is about summoning of
\npolice sniffer dogs to the place of occurrence. The learned counsel would
\ncontend that since the assailants were not known, the service of sniffer dog was
\nsummoned by P.W.23. We have considered the evidence of P.W.23 in this regard,
\nwherein he has stated that police sniffer dog was summoned. But there was no
\nprobe into that by way of cross examination on the part of the defence in
\nrespect of time of dog brought and also the purpose.   In the absence of any
\nsuch probe by way of cross examination for the way in which the sniffer dog was
\nbrought to the place of occurrence, we cannot hold that the dog was brought only
\nbecause the assailants were not known to anybody.\n<\/p>\n
\t49. The contention of the learned counsel that the non examination of the
\ndriver and conductor of the bus, in which the deceased party had lastly
\ntravelled from Kamuthi, and non production of the documents viz., invoice and
\nticket book is a serious flaw which creates doubt in the case of prosecution
\ndoes not convince us. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.23, the driver and
\nconductor of the bus were examined during investigation. For the reasons best
\nknown to the prosecution, they have not been examined. However, in our
\nconsidered opinion, the non examination of the driver and the conductor of the
\nbus would not in any manner create doubt about the travel made by the deceased
\nparty in the bus. When the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 4 are so cogent and convincing
\nin that regard, only on the ground of non examination of the driver and
\nconductor and non production of invoice and ticket book, we cannot discard the
\ncase of the prosecution that the deceased party lastly travelled from Kamuthi in
\nthe said bus and got down at Thodapatti bus stop. The learned senior counsel
\nMr.Shanmuga sundaram placed reliance on the decision reported in 2000 – 1 – L.W.
\n(Cri) 408 (SAMUDRAPANDI AND 3 OTHERS v. STATE REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
\nETC.), wherein it has been stated that non recovery of ticket book would create
\ndoubt in the case of the prosecution. But, the said conclusion arrived at by the
\nCourt in that case is based on the facts and circumstances of that case. Hardly
\ncan it be a precedent. In our case, as held above, the non recovery of ticket
\nbooks and the invoices cannot be considered to be a flaw, much less, a serious
\nflaw in the case of the prosecution so as to discredit the evidence of P.Ws.1 to\n<\/p>\n
4.<\/p>\n
\t50. The learned counsel pointed out that the prosecution witnesses
\ncontradict each  other in respect of the overtacts attributed to these accused.
\nIn our view, such contradictions are quite natural. It is highly impossible for
\nany witness to remember each and every one overtact of every accused which he
\nhad witnessed long back so as to narrate the same without any contradiction.
\nSuch contradictions are bound to occur. Unless those contradictions are material
\nso as to discredit the entire evidence of a particular witness or the entire
\ncase, the said contradictions are only to be neglected.  Therefore, though there
\nare certain contradictions in respect of overtacts, we are not prepared to
\nreject the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4 on that score alone.\n<\/p>\n
\t 51. The learned senior counsel would contend that if the First
\nInformation Report is found to be false and fabricated, then the entire case of
\nthe prosecution should collapse. Admittedly, the occurrence had taken place at
\n4.30 pm.  The distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is
\nhardly 6 kms. P.W.1 had gone to the police station within one hour and preferred
\nthe complaint Ex.P1 which contains all the details. The said First Information
\nReport, Ex.P34 and the complaint, Ex.P1 had reached the hands of the learned
\nMagistrate at 12.10 am without any delay. This shows the promptness with which
\nthe First Information Report has been registered which would exclude any
\npossibility for deliberations.\n<\/p>\n
\t52. The contention of the learned counsel  that there should have been
\nsome other earliest information to the police and the same has been suppressed
\nis only an assumption. The learned senior counsel relies on the evidence of
\nP.W.13 to drive this point home. According to P.W.13, when he was at Kamuthi
\nReserve police station, he was informed by a police personnel from the Kamuthi
\npolice station to rush to the said police station. The said information was
\npassed on over phone. Immediately he proceeded to the Kamuthi police station
\nfrom where, carrying some police personnel, he reached the place of occurrence
\nand found P.W.12 at the place of occurrence. Then he along with P.W.12 took the
\ndeceased Thillai Natarajan and Krishna thevar to the Government Hospital.
\nPlacing reliance on this part of the evidence, the learned senior counsel would
\nsubmit that some other information would have been given to Kamuthi police
\nstation, based on such information, P.W.12 had rushed to the place of occurrence
\nwith the police vehicle. The said earliest information has been suppressed, the
\nlearned counsel contended. But we are not able to accept the said argument. It
\nmay be true that some information was  passed to Kamuthi police station by
\nsomebody. But, however, such information passed through phone cannot be
\nconsidered to be first information for registration of a case for want of
\nauthenticity.  Therefore, even assuming that there was some other information
\npassed to the Kamuthi police, in our considered opinion, that cannot be a ground
\nat all to hold that Ex.P1 is a document which came into existence after
\ndeliberations.\n<\/p>\n
\t53. Yet another contention of the learned senior counsel is that P.W.21,
\nwho is the witness for observation mahazar, has stated that he heard about the
\noccurrence at 4.00 p.m. on that day and then he proceeded to the place of
\noccurrence and reached at 4.30 pm. He has further stated that immediately
\nthereafter he returned to the Tahsildar’s office at Kamuthi, from where, again
\nhe proceeded along with Tahsildar in a jeep at 6.30 p.m. The learned senior
\ncounsel would rely on this part of the evidence of P.W.21 to submit that the
\nenquiry held by the Tahsildar on the spot and the report prepared by him would
\ncontain truth and the suppression of the same creates doubt in the case of the
\nprosecution. He would further submit such a report would have been prepared by
\nthe Tahsildar long prior to the registration of the case and therefore, the said
\ndocument is an important document in this case.  Though the said argument
\nappears to be attractive, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.21 would expose the
\nfallacy of the same.  It may be true that the Tahsildar, who is the Taluk
\nMagistrate rushed to the place on hearing about the occurrence since it was
\nsensational multiple murders. It may even be true that a Tahsildar would have
\nforwarded a report to the Government. But the said report is not a part of
\nrecord of the investigation done by the police. If at all, it is the case of the
\naccused that the said document would contained a different version, which would
\nbe favourable to the accused, nothing would have prevented the accused either
\nfor  summoning the Tahsildar as a witness or to produce the report, if any, of
\nthe Tahsildar in evidence on their side. The prosecution is not obliged to
\nproduce such a report since it does not form part of the investigation done by
\nthe police. Thus, the non production of the said report of the Tahsildar cannot
\nbe termed as a suppression at all.\n<\/p>\n
\t54.The contention of the learned senior counsel Mr.Chellapandian is that
\nEx.P1 is a lengthy document running to 3 pages and the same contains all the
\nminute details about the occurrence, which would indicate that the same would
\nhave been prepared after long deliberations. He would further submit that it is
\nhumanly impossible to narrate each and every one overtact of the accused in the
\nFirst Information Report when there are multiple number of deceased and multiple
\nnumber of accused. Of course it is true that the First Information Report runs
\nto three pages containing minute details, but, that itself cannot give an
\ninference that it is a concocted document so as to the discredit the entire
\ncase.  To the contrary, what is required on the part of the Court is that the
\nCourt should be very cautious in approaching the case to find out the truth and
\nto find out whether any accused has been falsely implicated.  The next question
\nis regarding the trustworthiness of the P.Ws.1 to 4.  As contended by the
\nlearned senior counsel Mr.Shanmuga sundaram, since these witnesses are highly
\nenemical towards the accused and closely related to each other and interested in
\nthe case of the prosecution, their evidences require very close scrutiny.  They
\nneed to pass the test of close scrutiny.\n<\/p>\n
\t55. Keeping in mind the above caution and also the settled position of law
\nthat the Court is required to apply the test of close scrutiny of the evidences
\nof PWs.1 to 4 since they are closely related to the deceased and highly enemical
\ntowards accused, we have to analyse whether the evidences of P.W.s 1 to 4
\nclearly point to the guilt of all the accused or not. So far as A1, Muthumani is
\nconcerned, P.Ws.1 to 3 have spoken clearly about his participation in the
\noccurrence and his overtacts. His name also finds place in the First Information
\nReport which duly corroborates the evidence of P.W.1. So far as A7, A11 and A15
\nare concerned, P.Ws.1 to 3 have spoken to about their participation in the crime
\nand the overtacts. Their names find place in the First Information Report. So
\nfar as  A8, A9, A12, A16 and A17 are concerned, P.Ws.1 and 2 have spoken about
\ntheir presence, participation in the occurrence and the overtacts. Their names
\nalso find place in the First Information Report. So far as A2, A3 and A6 are
\nconcerned, P.W.3 has spoken about their presence and participation in the crime.
\nThe presence and participation of A4, A10 and A18 has been spoken to by P.W.2
\nalone. The presence and participation of A14 has been spoken to by P.W.1.\n<\/p>\n
\t56. The presence alone of A5 and A13 has been spoken to by the witnesses.
\nBut there are no overtacts attributed to them. The participation of A19 and A20
\nhas been spoken to only by P.W.4.\n<\/p>\n
 \t57. As narrated above, the participation of the accused A1 to A4, A6 to
\nA12 and A14 to A18 has been spoken to either by one or two or three witnesses.
\nThere are no reasons to reject their evidence so far as these accused are
\nconcerned.\n<\/p>\n
\t58. The learned senior counsel would point out that the investigation is
\nhighly defective and no effort has been made by the Investigating Officer to
\nfind out the truth. According to him, since many of the accused in the present
\ncase were also accused in the earlier case in respect of murder of Rajendran,
\nwithout finding out of the actual involvement of any of these accused, P.W.23
\nhas fabricated the case in connivance of P.W.1 and his party against all their
\nenemies. Though there are certain defects in the investigation, we are fully
\nconvinced that the accused 1 to 4, 6 to 12, 14 to 18 were the perpetrators of
\nthis crime.\n<\/p>\n
\t59. The contention of the learned counsel Mr.Muthupandian is that in so
\nfar as A15 is concerned, though it is alleged that he caused an injury on
\nKrishna Thevar on his wrist, the medical evidence does not support the same. Of
\ncourse, there is no corresponding injury. But in our considered opinion, having
\nregard to the nature of the occurrence in which many people were attacked,
\nsimultaneously such contradictions would bound to occur and therefore, on that
\nground alone, we cannot hold that A15 has not participated in the occurrence and
\nnot caused injury on the Krishna thevar.\n<\/p>\n
\t60. The contention of the learned counsel Mr.Thirumalairaj that though it
\nis alleged by P.W.1 that A14 inflicted injury on Krishna Thevar with velstick,
\nthere is no corresponding stab injury on him also cannot be accepted.  Though it
\nis stated by the Doctor that there was a cut injury on the body of Krishna
\nthevar, it cannot be always said that velstick cannot cause a cut injury. It all
\ndepends on the manner in which the weapon is used.\n<\/p>\n
\t61. The contention of Ms. Jayarani, the learned counsel for A11 is that
\nA11 has been falsely implicated in the case because he was Ex-President of the
\nvillage and also there was enmity between P.W.1 and him.  It is needless to
\npoint out that the motive is a double edged weapon. It may be due to the said
\nmotive, A11 had participated in the occurrence. Therefore on the ground raised
\nby the learned counsel, A11’s participation cannot be disbelieved.\n<\/p>\n
\t62. The contention of Mr.Jeganathan, learned counsel for A17 and A19 is
\nthat A17 hails from a different village and so he could not have been present at
\nthe place of occurrence also cannot be accepted. As pointed out earlier
\nregarding his participation, P.Ws.1 and 2 have cogently deposed and the medical
\nevidence also supports the same.\n<\/p>\n
\t63. However, we have got doubt about the participation of A5, A13, A19 and
\nA20. In so far as A5, Boominathan and A13 Palanivel are concerned, though there
\nis evidence that they were also present in the occurrence, there is no overtact
\nattributed to these two accused. It is not as if they were not armed with
\nweapons. According to the prosecution case, they were armed with weapons. Even
\nthen, it is not stated that they caused any attempt on any one of the deceased
\nor caused any injury.  Had it been true that they were present at the scene of
\noccurrence, certainly they would have either attempted to cause any injury or to
\nhave caused injury on any one of the victims. The very fact that there is no
\nsuch evidence available against them would create doubt about their very
\nparticipation in the occurrence. Since the danger of false implication is more
\nprone in a case where there are multi number of deceased and multi number of
\naccused, applying the test of close scrutiny, we are not able to convince
\nourselves that the prosecution has proved the participation of A5 and A13 and so
\nwe are inclined to acquit them.\n<\/p>\n
\t64. So far as A19 and A20 are concerned, their names do not find place in
\nthe First Information Report. P.Ws.1 to 3 have not even spoken about their
\npresence in the crime spot. P.W.4 alone has stated about their presence and
\nparticipation. P.W.4 has admitted during cross examination that he does not know
\nthe name of A20 prior to the occurrence.  Admittedly, there was no test
\nidentification parade conducted. He has identified A20 for the first time in
\nCourt. The medical evidence also does not corroborate the overtact spoken to by
\nP.W.4 in respect of A20. Though he has stated that his wife Annammal, D5 was
\nattacked by A19, Dakshinamoorthy, it is only an improvement since he has not
\nsaid so during investigation. Thus the participation of A19 and A20 also has not
\nbeen proved beyond reasonable doubts.\n<\/p>\n
\t65. In conclusion, for the reasons stated above, we hold that A1 to A4, A6
\nto A12 and A14 to A18 (since died) are responsible for the gruesome murder of D1
\nto D8 and attempting to murder Krishna thevar. Since they formed an unlawful
\nassembly with common object of  doing away with the deceased 1 to 8 and Krishna
\nthevar, each one accused was responsible for the overtact of the rest of the
\naccused also. They are constructively responsible for the killing of each
\ndeceased. It can be safely held that each accused is liable to be punished under
\nSection 302 read with 149 IPC since these accused alone caused the death of the
\neight persons. They are liable to be punished under Section 307 read with 149
\nIPC for having made an attempt on the life of Krishna thevar. Similarly they are
\nliable to be punished under Section 148 IPC for having been members of unlawful
\nassembly with deadly weapons.  (A7 and A18 are dead).\n<\/p>\n
\t66.  As pointed out by the learned counsel for the defence, though the
\ntrial court has not taken care to frame charges under appropriate penal
\nprovisions, we are of the view that the accused have not been in any manner
\nmislead by the said errors pointed out by the learned counsel. It is needless to
\nsay that under Section 215 Cr.P.C. unless it is shown that failure of justice
\nhas occasioned or the accused has been mislead by such errors, the said errors
\nare not at all material and because of the errors and omissions in the charges,
\nthe conviction cannot be held vitiated. Therefore, it is necessary to modify the
\nconviction and sentences appropriately. In result, we modify the conviction and
\nsentence imposed by the lower court as detailed below:-\n<\/p>\n
i) A1 to A4, A6, A8 to A12 and A14 to A17 are convicted under Section 148 IPC
\nand sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.\n<\/p>\n
ii) A1 to A4, A6, A8 to A12, A14 to A17 are convicted under Section 302 read
\nwith Section 149 IPC (8 counts) instead of 302 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to
\nundergo imprisonment for life for each count.\n<\/p>\n
iii) We confirm the conviction of A1 to A4, A6, A8 to A12 and A14 to A17 under
\nSection 307 read with Section 34 IPC and sentence them to undergo rigorous
\nimprisonment for ten years.\n<\/p>\n
iv) We set aside the conviction and sentence imposed on A5, A13, A19 and A20.\n<\/p>\n
\t67. In all other respects, the conviction and sentence imposed by the
\nlower court under various charges stand modified as indicated above.\n<\/p>\n
\t68. The trial court has directed the sentences to run consecutively.  The
\nlearned senior counsel Mr.Shanmuga sundaram appearing for some of the accused
\nrelying on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in (1991) 4
\nSUPREME COURT CASES 304 (RANJIT SINGH v. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH)<\/a> would
\nsubmit that in view of the statutory mandate under Section 427 (2) of Cr.P.C.,
\nthe sentences of imprisonment for life are only to run concurrently. He would
\nalso place reliance on the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in
\nAIR 1961 SC 600 (GOPAL VINAYAK GODSE v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA)<\/a> to submit that
\nimprisonment for life means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period
\nof the convicted person’s natural life. According to the learned senior counsel,
\nif that be so, it will be unworkable to impose sentence of imprisonment for life
\nfor each count to run consecutively. He would further submit that in view of
\nSection 427 Cr.P.C., it is illegal to direct the life sentences to run
\nconsecutively. But we are not persuaded by the said argument. At the first
\ninstance, the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in RANJIT SINGH’s case
\nhas got no application to the facts of the present case since it was rendered in
\nthe context of Section 427 Cr.P.C. Section 427 Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-
\n(1) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment is sentenced on
\na subsequent conviction to imprisonment or imprisonment for life, such
\nimprisonment or imprisonment for life shall commence at the expiration of the
\nimprisonment to which he has been previously sentenced, unless the Court directs
\nthat the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous sentence:
\n\tProvided that where a person who has been sentenced to imprisonment by an
\norder under section 122 in default of furnishing security is, whilst undergoing
\nsuch sentence, sentenced to imprisonment for an offence committed prior to the
\nmaking of such order, the latter sentence shall commence immediately.
\n(2) When a person already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life is
\nsentenced on a subsequent conviction to imprisonment for a term or imprisonment
\nfor life, the subsequent sentence shall run concurrently with such previous
\nsentence.\n<\/p>\n
\t69. A close reading of Section 427 (2) of Cr.P.C.  would go to show that
\nit applies to a person who has been undergoing sentence for imprisonment for
\nlife in connection with a different trial. But in our considered opinion,
\nSection 427 Cr. P.C. has no application in respect of life sentences to be
\nimposed in the same trial. When a similar question arose before the Honourable
\nSupreme court in KAMALANANTHA v. STATE OF T.N. (2005 SUPREME COURT CASES (CRI)
\n1121), the Honourable Supreme Court has laid down the law on this subject. The
\nHonourable Supreme Court has referred to Section 31 of the Code of Criminal
\nProcedure and has held that the term of ‘imprisonment’ employed under Section 31
\nof the Cr.P.C. includes imprisonment for life also and therefore, as provided
\nunder Section 31 of Cr.P.C. it is not illegal to direct the sentences of life
\nimprisonment imposed in the same trial to commence one after the expiry of the
\nother. The Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 76 has held as follows:-
\n“The contention of Mr.Jethmalani that the term “imprisonment” enjoined in
\nSection 31 Cr.P.C. does not include imprisonment for life in unacceptable. The
\nterm “imprisonment” is not defined under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section
\n31 of the Code falls under Chapter III of the Code which deals with power of
\ncourts. Section 28 of the Code empowers the High Court to pass any sentence
\nauthorised by law. Similarly, the Sessions Judge and Additional Sessions Judge
\nmay pass any sentence authorised by law, except the sentence of death which
\nshall be subject to confirmation by the High Court. In our opinion, the term
\n“imprisonment” would include the sentence of imprisonment for life. ”\n<\/p>\n
\t70. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by the Honourable Supreme
\nCourt, it is  not illegal to direct the sentences of life to run consecutively.\n<\/p>\n
\t71. The learned senior counsel Mr.Shanmuga Sundaram would further submit
\nthat having regard to the plea of the accused that they are the villagers
\nhailing from poorer families and considering the plight of the members of the
\nfamilies of the accused, this Court may direct the sentences of life to run
\nconcurrently. We have given anxious consideration to the above submissions of
\nMr.Shanmuga Sundaram, the learned senior counsel.\n<\/p>\n
\t72. While dealing with the case, we feel that the occurrence is heart
\nrending. When the deceased who are closely related to each other were in
\ndistress as their close relative Rajendran was done to death and they were
\nreturning to their house, these appellants had attacked them in a brutal manner
\nand caused the death of seven persons instantaneously and one died in the
\nhospital. The merciless killing of the innocent and helpless child aged one and
\nhalf years which was on the lap of the D7 can not be condoned at all. The manner
\nin which the crime has been executed would go in the history of the State in
\nfuture as to how brutality was unleashed in a village on innocent victims.  It
\nis not as if the occurrence was not a pre- meditated one. The brutality of the
\nact is amplified by the grotesque and revolting manner in which the helpless
\nvictims have been murdered which is indicative of the fact that the act was
\ndiabolic of the most superlative degree in conception and cruel in execution.
\nThe accused are not possessed of the basic humanness and completely lack the
\npsyche or mindset which can be amenable for any reformation. It is barbaric,
\ndiabolic, revolting and rarest.  The accused do not deserve our sympathy at all.
\nAs a matter of fact, such crimes in this State are to be put down with iron
\nhands. But the lower court has taken a generous view to show sympathy on the
\naccused to impose only imprisonment for life.\n<\/p>\n
\t73. For all these reasons, in our considered opinion, any leniency shown
\nto the appellants would be a misplaced sympathy. Therefore, we are of the firm
\nview that the direction of the lower court for the sentences of life
\nimprisonment imposed for each count and imprisonment of 10 years imposed to run
\nconsecutively deserves to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
\t74. In result, C.A.No.451 of 2006 is allowed in so far as A5, Boominathan
\nis concerned. The conviction and sentence imposed on him is set aside. In so far
\nas A6 in C.A.No.451 of 2006 is concerned, the appeal is dismissed with
\nmodifications indicated in para 66.\n<\/p>\n
\t75. C.A.No.328 of 2006 is allowed in so far as A13, Palaniveluthevar is
\nconcerned. The conviction and sentence imposed on him is set aside. C.A.No.328
\nof 2006 is dismissed in respect of the other accused\/ appellants with
\nmodifications indicated in para 66.\n<\/p>\n
\t76. C.A.No.323 of 2006 is allowed in respect of A19, Dhakshinamoorthy. The
\nconviction and sentence imposed on him is set aside. In respect of A18,
\nMalaiyandi, the appeal stands abated as he is dead. The appeal in respect of
\nother accused\/ appellants is dismissed with modifications indicated in para 66.\n<\/p>\n
\t77. C.A.No.313 of 2006 is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed on
\nA20, Muthuramalingam is set aside.\n<\/p>\n
\t78. C.A.Nos.406 of 2006 and 539 of 2006 are dismissed with modifications
\nindicated in para 66.\n<\/p>\n
\t79. A5, Boominathan, S\/o Chinnathambi, A13 Palaniveluthevar,
\nS\/o.Vellaisamy, A19 Dhakshinamoorthy S\/o. Irulandi and A20 Muthuramalingam S\/o
\nIlanthi Thevar are directed to be set at liberty forth with, unless they are
\nrequired in connection with any other case.\n<\/p>\n
bg<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1. Inspector of Police
\nKovilangulam Police Station,
\nRamanathapuram\n<\/p>\n
2. Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Ramanathapuram<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 14\/12\/2007 Coram The Honourable Mrs.Justice PRABHA SRIDEVAN and The Honourable Mr.Justice S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.A.(MD).No.313 of 2006, Crl.A.(MD).Nos.323, 328, 406, 451 and 539 of 2006 Crl.A.No.313 of 2006 Muthuramalingam … Appellant vs State […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-186688","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMuthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-07-26T22:13:39+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"62 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-26T22:13:39+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007\"},\"wordCount\":12021,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007\",\"name\":\"Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-12-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-07-26T22:13:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-07-26T22:13:39+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"62 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007","datePublished":"2007-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-26T22:13:39+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007"},"wordCount":12021,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007","name":"Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-12-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-07-26T22:13:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/muthuramalingam-vs-state-by-inspector-of-police-on-14-december-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Muthuramalingam vs State By Inspector Of Police on 14 December, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186688","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=186688"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/186688\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=186688"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=186688"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=186688"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}