RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL. A. NO. 757 of 2002: Accused Nos 1 and 2, who have been convicted in S. C. No. 504/2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Salem (Fast Track Court No. II) for the offences under Sections 148 and 302 I. P. C and sentenced to undergo one year Rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 148 IPC,life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC are the appellants. The second accused is also convicted under Section 397 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment. Crl. A. No. 632 of 2003: Accused Nos. 6 and 7, who have been convicted in S. C. No. 504 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Salem (Fast Track Court NO. II) for the offence under Sections 341, 147 and 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 341 IPC, six months rigourous imprisonment for the offence under Section 147 IPC and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 IPC are the appellants.

(2.) THE respondent-police had filed a final report against the accused/appellants, and others seeking appropriate punishment, under Sections 341, 148,147,302 read with 34 and 120 (b) IPC 302 read with 149, 302 read with 109 IPC and under Section 397 IPC, on the ground that the accused/appellants and three others formed themselves into an unlawful assembly, with an intention to commit crime, that A6 and A7 wrongfully restrained the lorry driven by Prakash (deceased) and took him away, where he was done to death by some of the accused,that some of the accused had threatened P. Ws. 1 and 2, while they were in lorry and committed dacoity, at knife point, with common intention, as well as being the members of an unlawful assembly and in this view, all the accused should be dealt with, accordingly for the offences made out, under the above said sections.

(3.) ALL the appellants including the other three accused, who have not filed appeals, against their convictions and sentence, have refused to plead guilty thereby compelling the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution taking the burden of proof on their shoulders, as mandated under law, in order to discharge the same, had examined as many as thirteen witnesses, seeking aid from thirty documents, supported by 22 material objects.