MURUGESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgment shall govern all these four appeals namely CA 732 of 2009 by A-1,728 of 2009 by A-2, 689 of 2009 by A-10 and 73 of 2010 by A-5 to A-9. All these appeals concentrate in challenging a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No. I, Salem, made in S.C. No. 269 of 2008 whereby these appellants along with two other accused ranked as A-3 and A-4, stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as follows: Accused Charges Finding Punishment A-1&A-2 120(B) read with 302 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10000/- and default sentence A-3 & A-9 148 IPC Guilty 3 years RI with a fine of Rs. 3000/- and default sentence A-l,A-4toA-8&A-10 147 IPC Guilty 2 years RI with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and default sentence A-l &A-3 to A-9 449 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10000/- and default sentence A-3, A-5, A-6 & A-7 302 read with 149 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10000/- and default sentence A-1, A-2, A-4 & A-8 to A-10 302 read with 109 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10000/- and default sentence A-2 302 read with 120(B) IPC Guilty Life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10000/- and default sentence A-4 to A-10 157 read with 302 IPC Guilty 6 years RI with a fine of Rs. 6000/- and default sentence

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:

(3.) The case was committed to Court of Sessions, and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses and also relied on 29 exhibits and 23 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. The trial Court heard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and hence found them guilty along with the other two accused and awarded the punishment as referred to above. Hence these appeals at the instance of the appellants.