MAHI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRIMINAL appeal preferred under Sec.374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, in S.C.No.104 of 2005 dated 31.12.2007.) This appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.II, Ranipet, made in S.C.No.104 of 2005 whereby the appellants seven in number ranked as A-1 to A-7 respectively, along with A-8 and A-9 stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: Table

(2.) AS stated above, A-1 to A-7 in respect of the other charges and A-8 and A-9 in respect of all the charges were acquitted by the trial Court. Hence this appeal at the instance of the appellants.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Gopinath would submit that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place on 11.11.2004 at about 10.30 A.M. that it is true that the prosecution has examined 24 witnesses out of whom P.Ws.1 to 4 are shown not only as occurrence witnesses, but also as injured witnesses that P.Ws.6 and 14 are shown as occurrence witnesses that as far as P.Ws.6 and 14 are concerned, their names are not found in the FIR, and hence, no credence could be given to their evidence that the trial Court was not made to understand even the genesis of the occurrence in the instant case but, it has taken an erroneous view that admittedly, the case came to be registered by P.W.23, at the instance of the complaint given by P.W.1 at the hospital at about 1.00 P.M. on 11.11.2004 when he was actually under treatment that the case came to be registered at 2.30 P.M. under Sec.307 of IPC and other provisions of the Code against the accused that it is admitted by P.W.23, the Sub Inspector of Police, that A-5 appeared before the police station, and gave a complaint, on the strength of which a case came to be registered on the very day at about 2.30 P.M. and A-1 and A-5 who were found with injuries, were sent to the hospital for treatment along with the medical memo and that it is categorically admitted by P.W.23 that at the earliest, the case was registered under Sec.307 of IPC and other provisions, and on the death of the deceased, it was converted to Sec.302 of IPC on 18.11.2004.