CHINNATHAMBI AND SATHEESH @ SATHEESHKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This judgement shall govern these two appeals viz., Crl.A. No. 1081 of 2007 filed by the first accused and Crl.A. No. 1102 of 2007 filed by the third accused. These two appeals along with other accused ranked as A2 and A4 stood charged, tried and found guilty by the First Additional Sessions Division, Salem in S.C. No. 324 of 2006 as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Accused Charges Findings Sentence ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A-1 148 IPC Guilty 1 year R.I ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A-2 to A-4 147 IPC Guilty 6 months R.I. each ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A-1 302 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- i/d 1 year R.I. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A-2 and A-3 302 r/w 114 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- i/d 1 year R.I. each ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A-4 302 r/w 149 IPC Guilty Life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- i/d 1 year R.I. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A-4 307 IPC Guilty 7 years R.I along with fine of Rs. 5000/- i/d 6 months R.I. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A-1 to A-3 307 r/w 149 IPC Guilty 7 years R.I along with fine of Rs. 5000/- i/d 6 months R.I.each -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2.) The short fact necessary for the disposal of these appeals could be stated as follows:

(3.) Advancing the argument on behalf of the appellants, learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, P.Ws. 1 to 6 were shown as occurrence witnesses. As per the prosecution, P.Ws. 2 and 5 went to Rohini theatre to witness a film and during the interval at 8.30 p.m., they were attacked by the accused and they came home and reported to P.W.1 and P.W.1 along with 5 others and the deceased went to the theatre to question the conduct of the accused and thus, the incident had taken place. If really such incident had taken place at 8.30 p.m. in which P.Ws.2 and 5 were actually attacked, they would have gone to the Police Station and gave a complaint but no such complaint was given. The prosecution has come with a story as if P.Ws. 2 and 5 gone to the house of P.W.1 and reported to him.