RAJENDRAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants herein have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated March 5, 1997 in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1988 whereby their conviction under S. 302 read with S. 149 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment, as well as their conviction under S. 1 47 and sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment has been affirmed by the High Court. We may observe that apart from these two appellants, two other persons who were convicted by the same judgment and order had also preferred a Special Leave Petition before this Court along with the appellants herein, but the Special Leave Petition in so far as it related to them, was rejected by this Court by order dated 12-12-1997.

(2.) In all eight persons were put up for trial before the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Madras, charged variously of offences under Ss. 147, 148, 302 and 302/149, I.P.C. The appellants herein were A-1 and A-6 before the trial Court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 25th March, 1988 in Sessions Case No. 142/87 found A-2 guilty of the offence under S. 302, I.P.C. and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. The remaining seven accused were found guilty of the offence under Ss. 302/149, I.P.C. and they were also sentenced to imprisonment for life. Further, the appellants herein as well as A-3, A-4 and A-7 were found guilty of the offence under S. 147, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment. A-2, A-5 and A-8 were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under S. 148, I.P.C.

(3.) Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial Court, three appeals were preferred before the High Court of Judicature at Madras being Criminal Appeal Nos. 177-179 of 1988. The appellants herein were the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 177 of 1988 along with two others. It appears that during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, A-2 died. Therefore, the appeal as against him abated. The High Court by a common judgment of March 25, 1997 allowed the appeals preferred by A-3, A-4 and A-7. However, it confirmed the conviction and sentence of the other accused including the appellants herein. A Special Leave Petition was preferred by the appellants herein along with A-5 and A-8, but as earlier noticed, the Special Leave Petition preferred on behalf of A-5 and A-8 was rejected by this Court. In this appeal, therefore, we are only concerned with the conviction of the two appellants herein.