SOMASUNDARAN ALIAS TEMBI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is against the order passed in Crl. M.P. No. 42 of 1993 in Sessions Case No. 183 of 1992 on the file of Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankari, dismissing the application for discharge filed by the petitioners.

(2.) There are totally 13 accused. The allegation is that on 24-5-1991 at about 8-30 a.m. all the accused formed themselves into an unlawful as-sembly and assaulted the complainant Mani severely by indiscriminate beating with the Thadi, Kuthukol etc. and tied him with the tree and again inflicted injuries all over the body of P.W. 1, the victim. On receipt of this news about the highhanded action of the petitioners, the Sub-Inspector of Police and a constable came there and rescued the complainant by unlying the rope with which he was tied with the tree. During the process, the Police Officers viz., the Sub-Inspector of Police and Constable were insulted by the accused persons by using filthy language. While a witness by name Kandaswamy helped the police officials by handing over the TVS Moped to enable them to take the victim to the police station the accused persons assaulted Kandaswamy also with the weapons and caused injuries all over the body of the said Kandaswamy. On the basis of these allegations an FIR has been registered by the Sub-Inspector of Police and after examination of the necessary witnesses, charge sheet has been filed on 15-7-1992 before the Magistrate.After the Committal the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankari took up the case as Sessions case No. 183 of 1992 and at that stage, on 19-3-1993 the petitioners accused 1 to 13 have filed an application in Crl. M.P. No. 42 of 1993 for discharge. After notice to Addl. Public Prosecutor the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Sankari dismissed the same rejecting the contentions raised by the petitioners/accused 1 to 13. Thereafter, he framed the charges against all the accused for the offences under Ss. 147, 148, 342, 307, 294 and 353, IPC. Hence this revision.

(3.) Mr. G. Shankaran, the counsel for the petitioners took me through the entire evidence collected by the Investigating Agency in the form of 101 statements and submitted that the learned Assistant Sessions Judge was wrong in framing the charges for the above offences triable by Sessions Court. His contentions are on two folds (1) that the injuries on the person of the complainant-Mani and one witness by name Kandaswamy do not come within the ambit of S. 307, IPC and (2) that the offences alleged to have been committed by the petitioners/accused 10 to 13 was not committed in the course of the same transaction in which accused 1 to 9 might have taken part.