JAYAPAL Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE four appellants stand convicted for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment till the raising of the Court and a fine of? 10,000/- each out of which a sum of? 20,000/- was directed to be paid to the Kaligambal Temple by the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge Chennai in S.C. No. 191 of 2002 dated 15.10.2003. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have come forward with the present appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that on 28.9.1999 at 12.30 a.m. one Karthik, who was the injured received a phone call from one of his friends who asked him to come near a tea stall known as "Bombay Tea Stall". Responding to the phone call the said Karthik went towards the said tea stall. P. W. 1 the father of the said Karthik having suspected some foul play followed his son. When Karthik was reaching the tea stall, suddenly four persons attacked him with wooden logs in which he sustained injuries. On seeing this incident P. W. 1 raised alarm which attracted the public to the place of occurrence. THEreafter, all the assailants left the injured and disappeared. Immediately, P.W. 1 took the injured and got him admitted in a private hospital known as National Hospital at 1 a.m. THE Doctor P. W.5 examined him and gave treatment. He issued Exhibit P4 wound certificate. Exhibit P-5 is the Medico Legal Register. THEreafter, the injured person was discharged on 26.10.1999. To the Doctor the said Karthik had told that he was attacked by unknown persons. THEreafter, P.W.I preferred a complaint to the Esplanade Police Station. In the complaint he has mentioned the names of the appellants as the assailants. P.W.2 is a person who is also residing in the same street. P.W.2 has been examined to speak about the observation mahazar. P.W.3 has been examined to speak about the confession statement of A2 as wel 1 as the seizure mahazar. P.W.3 examined as an eye witness has turned hostile. P.W.6 is the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered the FIR. P. W.7 investigated the case followed by P.W.8. P.W.8 laid the final report. THE trial Court framed charges under Section 307 read with 34 IPC against the appellants. THEy denied the charges.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants resisted the judgment of the trial Court on the following grounds: