ARUMUGHAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused 1 to 3 in SC No. 106 of 1991 of the Additional Sessions Court, Palakkad are the appellants. They and two others were tried for offences punishable under S.143, 147, 148, 324, 307 and 302r/w. 149 IPC on the allegation that they had formed themselves unlawful assembly and in prosecution of its common object as also on account of previous enemity, the first accused stabbed one Neelam to death and attempted to commit the murder of PWs 1, 2 and 5, that the second accused inflicted injuries upon PWs 3, 6 and 7 and third accused upon PW. 4. The incident happened on 7.11.1990 at 6.30 p.m. at Kothamangalam near the shop of Velayudhan Ezhuthassan, within the jurisdiction of Coyalmannam Police Station. The first informant was PW 1 on whose statement, marked as Ext. P1, given at 11.15 p.m. the same night from the male ward of the Government Hospital, Palakkad, PW 24 registered the FIR in Crime No. 239 of 1990 of Coyalmannam Police Station. PW 25, Circle Inspector of Police investigated the case and laid the final report.

(2.) The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge, whereupon prosecution examined PWs 1 to 25, marked Exts. P1 to P29 and MOs. 1 to 20. When they were questioned under S.313 Cr. P.C. they denied that the witnesses spoke the truth and said that the incident had not happened as alleged. A1 said that he was taken by A4 and A5 to meet PW 7 with whom they had a problem and while it was being discussed, PW 7 held him and he was cut by PWs 1 and 2. Suddenly the lights went off. With about 10-25 people there, hell was let loose and he heard later that injuries were sustained by the deceased. He maintained his innocence. A2 and A3 also generally denied the incident and their involvement in it and said that they were innocent. A3 further stated that he was taken to the place of incident by A4 and A5 and while A5 and PW 7 were talking he asked them to wait till the owner of the tractor arrived when PW 7 retorted that he should not feel so big and then he and PWs 1 to 3 started a quarrel during which PWs 1 and 2 cut him after he was held by PW 7. He fell down when suddenly lights went off and there was total commotion. No witness was examined in defence, but the case diary statements of PWs 1 to 6, 8 and 9 were marked as Exts. D1 to 9 in defence. The remand report relating to A2 to 4 dt. 9.11.1990 was marked as Ext. C1.

(3.) The court below considered the evidence and circumstances and held that the prosecution failed to show that the accused were members of an unlawful assembly and accordingly found against charge under S.143, 147, 148 and 149 IPC. No case against A4 and 5 was also held to have been made out and they were acquitted. The first accused was found guilty under S.302, 307 and 324 IPC and A2 and 3 under S.324, convicted and sentenced on the different counts by judgment dated 3.9.1994, which is under challenge in this appeal.