SEKAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been brought forth by the appellants, who were arrayed as A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-6 before the learned I Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Salem, in S.C.No.27 of 2000, where, they along with three others, who were arrayed as A-2, A-5 and A-7, stood charged, found guilty and sentenced to imprisonment as follows:- Charge Nos.1 and 2 were framed against A-1 to A-7 under Sections 148 and 449 IPC. respectively. Charge No.3 was framed against A-1 to A-3 under Section 302 IPC. Charge No.4 was framed against A-4 to A-7 under Section 302 read with 149 IPC. Charge No.5 was framed against A-4 and A-6 under Section 506 (ii) IPC. Charge No.6 was framed against A-1 to A-3, A-5 and A-7 under Section 506(ii) read with 149 IPC. Charge No.7 was framed against A-5 under Section 324 IPC. Charge No.8 was framed against A-1 to A-4, A-6 and A-7 under Section 324 read with 149 IPC. Charge No.9 was framed under Section 325 IPC. against A-7. Charge No.10 was framed against A-1 to A-6 under Section 325 read with 149 IPC.

(2.) THE trial Judge, on finding A-1 and A-3 guilty under Section 148 IPC. sentenced each one of them to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Similarly, on being convicted under Section 449 IPC., they were each sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each with a default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment. On being convicted under Section 302 IPC., A-1 and A-3 were each sentenced to imprisonment for life and they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each with a default sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment. A-4 and A-6, on being found guilty under Section 449 IPC., were each sentenced to the period of imprisonment, which they had already undergone during trial, and they were also directed to pay a fine of Rs.200/- each with a default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment. Similarly, on being found guilty under Section 506(ii) IPC., A-4 and A-6 were each sentenced to the period of imprisonment, which they had already undergone during trial, and they were also further directed to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each with a default sentence of one month rigorous imprisonment. Aggrieved over the same, A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-6 have brought forth the above appeal.

(3.) IT is not in controversy that one Mathaiyan died out of homicidal violence. From the evidence, it would be quite clear that on the night of 20.12.1994, the occurrence took place in front of the house of P.W.1, where the deceased was attacked and he was first taken to Government Hospital, Omalur, from where, he was taken to Government Hospital, Salem, for further management, where he was declared dead by the doctor, P.W.8, who issued Ex.P-13, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased died due to multiple injuries sustained by him. The said fact was also never disputed by the appellants either before the trial Court or before this Court. Hence, there is no impediment in recording that Mathaiyan died out of homicidal violence.