SADASIVAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by all the 12 accused who have been convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C and have been sentenced to life imprisonment among other minor offences. The details of which will be as follows: A1 to A -12 are each convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for life under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. A -1 to A -12 has been further convicted for an offence under Section 148 and have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for one year, while A -5 has been convicted in addition to the above said offences for an offence under Section 326 I.P.C and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and A -3, A -4, A -6, A -7, A -9, A -10 and A -11 have been convicted under Section 324 and sentenced to six months imprisonment. The sentences awarded were directed to run concurrently by the learned Sessions Judge.

(2.) THE substance of the charge levelled against the Appellants who are the accused in the trial court is that on 26.9.90 at about 9.00 p.m, all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and with the common object to commit the murder of one Kannadasan and other witnesses at Kuchipalayam, attacked the deceased Kannadasan indiscriminately and caused the death of the said Kannadasan, while causing injuries to the witnesses Keshavan, Durai and Elangovan, thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with 120B, 147, 148, 341, 307, 302 read with 149 I.P.C and 307 read with 149 I.P.C. The accused denied the charge and hence the trial.

(3.) P .W. 12 is the Doctor who conducted the autopsy on the body of the said Kannadasan. He has issued the post mortem certificate Ex. P -9 and has narrated in detail, the injuries found on him. The description of these injuries have been already narrated by us in the earlier part of the judgment and hence it may not be necessary for us to reiterate the same. Suffice it to state that the Doctor has opined that the death is due to extra dural, intra -cerebral haemorrhage and shock. He was further of the opinion that the Injury No. 2, 3 and 4 with the corresponding internal injuries along with the cumulative effect are enough to cause death instantaneously. The cause of death is not seriously challenged by the defence and in our opinion the prosecution has clearly established that the deceased in this case died due to homicidal violence.