M. MURUGAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused in S.C. No. 171 of 2005 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court I, Coimbatore are the appellants. They were charge sheeted for offences under sections 147, 148 and 307 of the IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted A. 1 for offence under section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; also convicted A. 1 for the offence under section 324 (2 Counts) IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment for each count. A. 3 to A. 9 and A. 15 were convicted for offence under section 148 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; and they were also convicted for the offence under section 324 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. A. 2, A. 10 to A. 14 and A. 18 were convicted for offence under section 148 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; and they were also convicted for the offence under section 324 r/w 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo nine months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment; and A. 16 and A. 17 were convicted for offence under section 147 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo one month simple imprisonment; and they were also convicted for the offence under section 324 r/w 149 IPC and each of them was sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to pay the fine, to undergo two months simple imprisonment. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence, the accused filed the above Appeals. The case of the prosecution is that on 8.3.2004 at 10.30 p.m., all the accused formed an unlawful assembly and with the common intention of committing murder, A. 1 to A. 15 and A. 18 were armed with iron pipes, wooden logs and caused injuries on P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and therefore, having committed the offence under sections 147, 148, 307 and 307 r/w 149 of the IPC. To substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and marked 11 Exhibits and 10 Material Objects. The accused examined one witness as D.W. 1 on their side. P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 are the injured witnesses and P.W. 7 is the mahazar witness. P.W. 8 did not support the prosecution nor was treated as hostile and P.W. 9 supported the prosecution case. P.W. 10 also supported the prosecution case and P.W. 11 is the Doctor. P.W. 12 is the Sub-Inspector of Police, who registered F.I.R. and P.W. 13 is the Investigating Officer. P.W. 6 also deposed that she sustained injuries in the incident that took place on 8.3.2004 and the other witnesses, namely, P.W. 1 to P.W. 5, P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 also spoke about the attack on P.W. 6. However, she was not examined by the Doctor.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the entire occurrence has been falsely fabricated by the witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 with the help of police and admittedly, there was no motive for the appellants and there was a lot of contradictions in the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and also in the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 10 and there was no corresponding injury on P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 as spoken to by them and no specific overt-act was attributed to any accused and if, really, all the accused numbering 18 attacked P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 as stated by them, they would have sustained more injuries and except contusions and lacerated injuries on the head, no injury was found on the body of the witnesses P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and insofar as P.W. 5 is concerned, the Doctor has given evidence to the effect that P.W. 5 had already undergone treatment and on 8.3.2004 at about 11.45 p.m., he saw a sutured wound on her head and therefore, the occurrence could not have happened in the manner as alleged by the prosecution as P.W. 5 had already underwent treatment in a private hospital, which was contrary to the case of the prosecution and these infirmities appearing in the evidence on the side of the prosecution were not properly appreciated by the trial Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants also submitted that as per the evidence of P.W. 9 and P.W. 10, immediately, after the occurrence, the police came to the spot and the accused on seeing the police ran away. On the contrary, the case of the prosecution is that the injured persons P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 immediately after the occurrence went to hospital and get themselves treated and P.W. 1, thereafter, came to the police station and gave a complaint and therefore, there was suppression of First Information Report and these infirmities were not properly appreciated by the trial Court. They therefore submitted that benefit of doubt arising there from may be given to the appellants and they may be acquitted.

(3.) Mr. A.N. Thambidurai, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 have given a clear and cogent evidence about the overt-act attributed against each of the accused and all of them invariably deposed that A. 3 was armed with iron pipe and he attacked P.W. 2, and the other accused were armed with casirona sticks and all of them attacked the victims with sticks all over the body and specific overt-acts were attributed to each accused by P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and considering all these aspects, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the aforesaid offence. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the evidence of Doctor also corresponds with the injuries sustained by the witnesses and more than 18 persons assembled at the spot and they shared a common intention to murder the witnesses and therefore, the charge sheet was laid for the offence under section 307 IPC and having regard to the nature of offence, the learned trial Judge convicted them for offence under section 324 IPC and 324 r/w 149 IPC. Therefore, the trial Court correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and convicted the appellants and there is no need for interference with the judgment of the trial Court.