MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the accused 1 to 6, in Sessions Case No.155 of 2002, on the file of the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem. The trial Court framed charges against the accused as detailed below: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_381_LAWS(MAD)4_2016.jpg</IMG> By JUDGEMENT dated 14.08.2013, the trial Court convicted all the six accused under these charges and sentenced them as follows: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_381_LAWS(MAD)4_20161.jpg</IMG> The sentences imposed against A1 to A6 have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentences, A1 has preferred Crl.A.No.627 of 2013 and A2 to A6 have preferred CrlA.No.603 of 2013.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) Based on the above materials, the trail Court framed charges against these accused, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment. The accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 15 witnesses were examined, 44 documents were marked, besides 11 material objects. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 7 have spoken about the entire occurrence, as eyewitnesses. P.W.7 is an injured eyewitness. P.W.3, the father of the deceased, has stated that he heard about the occurrence, while he was at his house and came to the place of occurrence. P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch, at the place of occurrence, by P.W.15. P.W.6 has spoken about the arrest of the accused, the confessions made by them and the consequential recovery of the crime weapons. P.W.8, the Head Clerk of the Court, has stated that he forwarded the material objects for chemical examination, on the orders of the learned Magistrate and according to the report, there were human blood stains on all the material objects, including the wooden logs, recovered from the accused. P.W.9, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.V, Salem, has stated that she recorded the statements of witnesses 1, 2, 4 and 7, under Sec. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as requested by the investigating officer. P.W.10 has spoken about the postmortem conducted by him and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.11, the Constable attached to the respondent police, has stated that he took the First Information Report, from the police station from P.W.15 and handed over the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate. P.W.12, a yet another Constable, has stated that he carried the dead body from the place of occurrence to the nearby hospital and handed over the same for postmortem. P.W.13 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.W.14 has spoken about the photographs taken at the place of occurrence, on the request made by P.W.15. P.W.15 has spoken about the investigation done and his final report against the accused.