VIJAYAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (Criminal Appeal filed against the conviction and sentence passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No.3), Chennai, in S.C. No.282 of 2001 dated 18.12.2003 as stated therein.) R. Balasubramanian, J. Appellants, seven in number, are challenging their conviction in S.C. No.282 of 2001 on the file of the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court III), Chennai. A-1, A-2 and A-4 to A-7 were charged under Sections 147, 148, 302 and 506 (II) IPC while A-3 was charged under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with 149 and 109 and 506 (II) IPC. The convicted accused have filed this appeal before this Court. Heard Mr. V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Mr.N.R.Elango, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor appearing for the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that at about 6.00 p.m. on 12.11.00, when Chitti " the deceased in this case, was on his way to the police station to give a complaint, about the earlier occurrence that took place at about 3.00 p.m. on that day in his house, in the company of P.W.s 1 to 3, was brutally attacked by the accused resulting in his death and, therefore, punishable as referred to above. To substantiate their case, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 15 besides marking Exs.P-1 to P-42 and M.O.s 1 to 8. THE defence neither brought in any oral nor documentary evidence.

(3.) P.W.s 2 and 3 had given evidence on the occurrence proper as spoken to by P.W.1. P.W.4 would depose that at about 3.00 p.m. on 12.11.00 he saw the accused on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand quarrelling and when he returned home he came to know that Chitti " since deceased, had already died. P.W.5, examined as an eye witness to the occurrence, turned hostile. P.W.6 speaks about the quarrel that took place at about 3.30 p.m. on 12.11.00 between the deceased on the one hand and A-1 on the other. A-1 was quarrelling with Chitti (deceased) accusing him of being an informant to the police. P.W.7 examined to prove the recovery mahazar and observation mahazar had admitted his signatures only in those two documents. Ex.P-3 is the signature in the observation mahazar and Ex.P-4 is the signature in the recovery mahazar. P.W.8 examined to prove the examination of A-1, A-2 and A-7 during police custody turned hostile. However, he had admitted his signatures in those statements, which are marked as Exs.P-5 to P-10. P.W.9, examined for the same purpose as P.W.8 was examined, has admitted only his signatures in the various documents and his admitted signatures are marked as Exs.P-11 to P-16. P.W.11 is the Magisterial Clerk, who speaks about the receipt of the case properties and sending the same to the laboratory for chemical examination. He also states that the report from the laboratory had come (and it must be noticed that neither the chemical examiner's report nor the serologist's report is marked in this case. Ex.P-18, the requisition given by the investigating officer to subject the case properties for chemical examination alone is marked). P.W.15, after completing the investigation and complying with all the other legal formalities, filed the final report in court against the accused on 24.11.01 for the offences referred to earlier.