KUMARAVEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal was filed by Accused Nos.2 to 7, 9 and 10 in S.C.No.2 of 2002 on the file of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Udagamandalam, against the judgment dated 30.4.2003 made in S.C.No.2 of 2002 convicting them for offences under sections 120B, 147, 324, 506(ii), 364, 395, 279, and 341 IPC. Initially, the Appeal was filed by the Appellants before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Udagamandalam, and having regard to the Criminal Revision Case No.1063 of 2003 filed by PW.3, the Appeal filed before the Principal Sessions Judge was withdrawn and transferred to this Court by an order of this Court and re-numbered as Crl.A.No.123 of 2004.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that on 17.2.2000 at 1.00 p.m., all the accused and one Tamilselvan (since deceased) formed an unlawful assembly and conspired to murder Non-Such Estate Manager, Mehtha, and pursuant to the said conspiracy, on the same date, at about 4.30 p.m., A.1 to A.4 and the deceased Tamilselvan formed an unlawful assembly and they were driving Zeep T.A.R.3464 in a rash and negligent manner and while overtaking the Zeep TN 43 7443, wherein PW.3, the driver Subramani (PW.2), and Soundarrajan (PW.1) were travelling, the driver of the zeep T.A.R.3464 dashed against the Zeep TN 43 7443 and PW.1 and PW.2 were dragged from Zeep TN 43 7443 by A.2 and A.3 and the Manager PW.3 Mehtha was bodily lifted into the Zeep T.A.R.3464 by A.1 to A.4 and his eyes were closed and his hands were tied and he was threatened and beaten up with rod and his signature was obtained in blank papers by intimidation and the said Mehtha was taken to Otterline and from him gold chain, Cell Phone, cash amounting to Rs.1,600/- were forcibly taken by A.1 to A4 and therefore, A.1 to A.4 have committed the offences punishable under section 120B, 147, 341, 279, 352(2) counts, 364, 307, 386, 395 and 506(ii) of the IPC.

(3.) To prove the prosecution case, 20 witnesses were examined and 21 Exhibits were marked and 6 MOs were also marked before the trial Court. The learned trial Judge convicted A.1 for offences punishable under section 120B, 147, 324, 506(ii) of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence and also convicted A.1 under sections 364 and 395 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence, with default stipulation. The trial Court convicted A.2 to A.3 for offence under section 120B, 147, 324 IPC r/w 34, 506(ii) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each offence and convicted A.2 and A.3 for offence under section 352 IPC and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and further convicted A.2 and A.3 for offence under sections 364 and 395 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence, with default stipulation. A.4 was convicted for offence under Section 120B, 147, 324 r/w 34, 506 (ii) r/w 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment for each offence and was convicted for offence under sections 341 and 279 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month for each, and was convicted for offence under sections 364 and 395 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence, with default stipulation. A.5 to A.7, A.9 and A.10 were convicted for offence under sections 120B, 147, 324 r/w 34, 506(ii) of the IPC r/w 34 IPC and were sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and were convicted for the for offence under sections 364 r/w 34 and 395 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for each offence and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence, with default stipulation. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, the Appellants filed the above Appeal.