MUTHU NAIGKER Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE three appeals arise out of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1970 convicting 27 appellants for different offences who were acquitted of all charges levelled against them by the learned Sessions Judge, Chingleput Division in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1969 in which 28 persons were put up for trial for various offences including the one under S. 302 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code against accused Nos. 1 to 10, 16, 17, 19 and 20, and under S. 302 read with S. 149, Indian Penal Code against rest of the accused and 3 other charges for specific offences under Ss. 323, 324, 325 read with S. 149 and S. 427 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code The learned Sessions judge entertained a reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution evidence and giving benefit of doubt, rejected the prosecution case in its entirety and acquitted all the accused. The State of Tamil Nadu preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madras against original accused Nos. 1 to 27. No appeal was preferred against the acquittal of original accused No. 28 and it has become final. The High Court practically accepted the entire prosecution case and convicted accused Nos. 1 to 27, i.e. all the accused in respect of whom the State had preferred an appeal, and sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment on different counts. Original accused Nos. 1-7 and 19 were convicted amongst others, for an offence under s. 302 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. THESE 8 accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1972 under S. 2 (a) of the Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1971. Original accused Nos. 8 to 18 and 20 to 27 applied for and obtained special leave in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1972. Original accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 19 were also convicted for various other offences and in respect of their convictions for offences other than the one under S. 302 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code, they applied for and obtained special leave in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1973. Thus, these three appeals arise from the same judgment and accordingly were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) A curious feature of this case which has caused us not inconsiderable anxiety is that in all 28 persons were challenged before the learned Sessions Judge who framed charges against the accused under 39 different heads. The prosecution in all examined 34 witnesses including prosecution witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 13 who are alleged to have suffered injuries at the scene of occurrence and in all probability in the course, of the occcurrence, and yet the learned Sessions Judge was not impressed by the evidence of any of these witnesses and rejected the entire prosecution case as unworthy of belief and acquitted all the accused. When the matter was taken to the High Court by the State against all accused, except the last, the High Court was of the opinion that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge has been "so unreasonable that the evidence given by the witnesses was discarded only on the ground that it is the evidence of partisan witnesses and the judgment of the trial court is vitiated by incoherent and heterogeneous medley of confused thinking, clarity and cogency being foreign to the judgment of the trial Court". With this cryptic observation the High Court accepted almost the entire prosecution case except where a concession was made by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and convicted all the appellants, viz., original accused Nos. 1 to 27 for various offences. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 19 were convicted for an offence under S. 302 read with S. 34, Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Accused Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, to 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26 and 27 were convicted for an offence under S. 147, Indian Penal Code and the remaining accused were convicted for an offence under S. 148, Indian Penal Code Accused Nos. 7, 17, 21 and 29 were convicted for an offence under S. 323, Indian Penal Code Accused Nos. 7, 11, 13, 23 and 25 were convicted for an offence under s. 324, Indian Penal Code Accused No. 19 was convicted for an offence under S. 325, Indian Penal Code, and all the accused were convicted with the aid of S. 149, Indian Penal Code, for the aforementioned offences. Some of the accused were also convicted for an offence under S. 427 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code They were awarded varying sentences on each count simultaneously directing that the substantive sentences would run concurrently.

(3.) HERE is a case in which in all 28 accused were put up for trial and as many as 34 witnesses were examined, 6 of whom are alleged to have been injured at the scene of occurrence and in all probability in the course of occurrence. The High Court in one paragraph of the judgment (para 60) agrees with the trial Court that the evidence of prosecution witnesses Nos. 10, 12 and 13 so far as they implicate accused Nos. 8, 9, 10, 16 and 17 fails to inspire confidence but in para 62 their evidence is accepted as reliable on minor charges but in this background we would exclude their evidence from further consideration. Even then there are 27 accused who are before this Court and there is evidence of 31 witnesses which is to be examined.