VENKATESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners in M.P. No.1/2014 in Crl.A. No.246/2014 are arrayed as A2, A3, A4, A5, A7 and A9 and the Petitioner in M.P. NO. 1/2014 in Crl.A. No.253/2014 is arrayed as A6 out of 10 Accused and they have been convicted and sentenced by the learned Sessions Judge for exclusive Trial of Bomb Blast Cases, at Poonamallee, in SC No.12/2001 dated 24.3.2014 as follows:

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that in order to gather arms and ammunitions for creating a revolution against the Government of India, the Accused persons along with the approver one Elangomani, as the Members of the ''Tamizhar Viduthalai Padai '', entered into a Criminal conspiracy on 03.04.1991 at 00.00 hours and decided to commit rioting at Puthur Police Station. In pursuance of the said Criminal conspiracy, on 06.04.1991 at 9.00 p.m, all the Accused formed an unlawful assembly in order to commit riot and to gain arms and ammunitions illegally from the Puthur Police Station. In furtherance of the same, on 07.04.1991, at 2.00 a.m., all the Accused including the approver Elangomani, trespassed into the Puthur Police Station. A2 to A10 were armed with country made bombs, guns and revolvers and other deadly weapons. The Police personnels, viz., PWs.1, 3 & 4, who are Sundaravadhanam (Sub -Inspector of Police), Shanmugam (Grade -1 Police Constable); Rajaram (Police Constable) and one Sundaramurthy (Head Constable), were on their duty at the time when the Accused trespassed into the Police Station. The overt acts attributed to each of the Accused are as follows: The deceased Rajendran (Police Constable) succumbed to the injuries instantaneously. The Accused - Elangomani turned as an Approver and he was examined as PW2.

(3.) Mr. C. Vijayakumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/A2, A3, A4, A5, A7 and A9 in Crl.A. No.246/2014 would submit that during the time of the alleged occurrence from the evening of 06.04.1991 till the early morning of 07.04.1991, there was no electric supply in and around the Puthur Police Station and hence, the possibility of identifying the Accused, a mob of people, in total darkness, cannot be accepted. The said fact of non -supply of electricity during the occurrence period was also substantiated by the evidence of PWs. 1, 3 and 4. It is also submitted that the FIR was registered after a long delay of time. The FIR was registered on 07.04.1991 at 11.30 a.m. while the occurrence had taken place at 2.00 a.m, he would also submit that none of the Accused were named in the FIR and it has been stated that 15 people had involved in the occurrence. It is further submitted that the charge -sheet in this case was filed as against 10 persons only after two years from the date of occurrence and that first set of charges was framed against the Accused only in the year 2007. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/A2 to A5, A7 and A9 would submit that no independent witness was examined on the side of the prosecution to strengthen its case. Hence, he would submit that since the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and inconsistencies, the Petitioners/A2 to A5, A7 and A9 are entitled to, for the suspension of the sentence.