MEIYALAGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are accused Nos. 1 to 4 in S.C. No. 314 of 2009 on the file of learned III Additional District Sessions Judge, Salem. Including these appellants, altogether, there were totally thirteen accused before the Trial Court and the Trial Court framed as many as 4 charges against them. The first charge was under Section 120(B) I.P.C. against accused Nos. 1 to 11, the second charge was under Section 341 I.P.C. against accused Nos. 1 to 4, the third charge was under Section 302 I.P.C. against accused Nos. 1 to 3; under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. against the 4th accused and under Section 302 r/w 120(B) I.P.C. against accused Nos. 5 to 11 and the fourth charge was under Section 212 r/w 120(B) I.P.C. against the twelfth accused. During the pendency of the trial, accused Nos. 7 and 13 died and thus, the charges against them stood abated. By judgment dated 04.01.2013, the Trial Court convicted accused Nos. 1 to 3 under Sections 341 I.P.C.and 302 I.P.C. and the fourth accused under Sections 341 I.P.C. and 302 r/w 109 I.P.C. They were acquitted of all the other charges. Accused Nos. 5, 6, 8 to 12 were acquitted of all the charges framed against them. Challenging the conviction and sentence imposed on them, accused Nos. 1 to 4 are before this Court with this appeal. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:

(2.) The prosecution, in this case, mainly relies upon the eye-witness account of P.Ws. 1, 3 and 4. P.W.1 is the father of the deceased. P.Ws.3 & 4 hail from the same village. According to P.W.1, he was present at the place of occurrence by chance. P.Ws. 3 and 4 have stated that they were members of Communist Party of India and on the date of occurrence, when they were returning at about 9.30 p.m., after attending a party meeting at the office, they witnessed the entire occurrence.

(3.) However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that these three witnesses would not have witnessed the occurrence at all and there are also material contradictions in their evidence. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, dispute the same.