Madras High Court
Sekar vs The State on 7 August, 2013
Bench: S.Rajeswaran, T.Mathivanan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07/08/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN Criminal Appeal (MD) No.402 of 2009 and Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 403 of 2009 1.Sekar 2.Ravi ... Appellants in Crl.A.(MD) No.402 of 2009 3.Murugan 4.Saravanan 5.Pitchai 6.Latha ... Appellants in Crl.A.(MD) No.403 of 2009 Vs The State rep.by the Inspector of Police Sanarpatti Police Station Dindigul District ... Respondent in both Criminal Appeals Prayer (in both appeals) Appeals are filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the Judgment dated 17.11.2009 and made in S.C.No.81 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul. !For Appellants ... Mr.N.Natarajan, Senior Counsel (Crl.A.(MD) No.402 of 2009) For Appellants ... Mr.K.Vellaisamy (Crl.A.(MD) No.403 of 2009) ^For Respondent ... Mr.R.Ramachandran Addl. Public Prosecutor :COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by T.MATHIVANAN, J.) The order of conviction and sentence dated 17.11.2009 and made in the Case in S.C.No.81 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, are under challenge in these two appeals.
2. The Criminal Appeal in C.A.No.402 of 2009 has been filed by the Accused 1 and 2, whereas the criminal appeal in C.A.No.403 of 2009 has been filed by the Accused 3 to 6.
3. The 1st appellant/accused stands convicted under Sections 148, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C., to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards fine, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months under Section 302 I.P.C., and to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 506(ii) I.P.C.
4. The 2nd appellant/accused stands convicted under Sections 148, 302 r/w 109, 506(ii) and 324 I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C., to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards fine, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C., and to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 506(ii) I.P.C., and to suffer another three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C.,
5. The appellants 3 to 6/accused stand convicted under Sections 148, 302 r/w 149, 506(ii) and 324 I.P.C., and each sentenced to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 148 I.P.C., to suffer life imprisonment and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards fine, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C., three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 506 (ii) I.P.C., and also to suffer three years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 324 I.P.C., and the sentences imposed on the appellants/accused are directed to run concurrently.
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order of conviction and sentence dated 17.11.2009 and made in S.C.No.81 of 2009, on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Dindigul, the appellants/Accused 1 to 6 have preferred the above appeals.
7. With the subject matter involved in both the appeals is common in nature, they have been clubbed together, heard jointly and disposed of in this common Judgment.
8. A matrimonial dispute between the husband and wife took it's ugly shape and created an act of warfare between two families, which eventuated in the death of an youth aged about 21 years. Who will take the responsibility of paying the price for the loss of a tender soul? How the wrong could be repaired and what is the reparative justice available for the aggrieved family?
9. Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants/accused 1 and 2 and Mr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused 3 to 6, have putforth their arguments proportionately in the ratio of 50:50.
10. Even during the course of trial, a defence theory and another theory of alibi in respect of the appellants/accused 2 and 4 were set up on behalf of the appellants/accused. But, unfortunately, the above theories were rejected by the learned Trial Judge.
11. In the defence theory, they have stated that the elder sister of the deceased Nagalingam namely Amudha is given in marriage to P.W.2 Selvam. Both of them were not in cordial relationship. Due to their matrimonial tiff, they had been picking up quarrel with each other. Due to this reason, during the worship of deity i.e., on 19.04.2007, a quarrel was erupted between P.W.2 Selvam and the deceased Nagalingam and during the course of this quarrel either P.W.2 Selvam or his father P.W.1 Karumbachalam might have stabbed the deceased Nagalingam to death.
12. In the theory of alibi, it has been stated that the first appellant/accused Sekar was not at all present in the place of occurrence as he had gone to write his entrance examination after completion of his higher secondary examination. Similarly, it has been stated that the third appellant/accused had not at all participated in the Panchayat held at Kanavai Karuppu temple and the fourth appellant/accused was also not available at the time of occurrence. But, these theories of defence as well as alibi have been turned down by the learned Trial Judge.
13. On the other hand, on appreciation of the evidences both oral and documentary, the learned Trial Judge has come to the conclusion that all the charges levelled against the appellants/accused 1 to 6 have been proved by the prosecuting agency beyond all reasonable doubts.
14. Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellants/accused 1 and 2, has projected his arguments on the following six grounds:
i. There is abnormal delay in recording the statement of P.W.1 (Ex.P1), in registration of the case in Crime No.145 of 2007 (Ex.P21), in despatching the complaint and the first information report to the Judicial Magistrate and there is also delay in despatching the express alteration report (Ex.P16); ii. The suggested motive has not been established and therefore the charges under Sections 302 and 302 r/w 109 I.P.C., as against the appellants/accused 1 and 2 would not be attracted, as there was no premeditation for the commission of the murder of the deceased Nagalingam;
iii. As per the prosecution case, single stab injury alone is said to have been given by A1 over the right side chest of the deceased with M.O.1. The bottom portion of M.O.1, as per Ex.P4 seizure mahazar, measures 7 c.m. The blade portion measures 5 c.m. Totally, it measures 12 c.m., and as such it cannot be concealed in the hip. This kind of knife is used for cock fight (to be tied with the legs of fighting cocks). P.Ws.1 to 5 have also spoken to that only one stab injury was given with M.O.1 by A1 over the right chest of the deceased. It is surprise to note as to how eight ribs i.e., R3 to R10 on the right side could have been fractured by a single stab injury. The fracture of R3 to R10 on the right side of chest has not been satisfactorily explained by the prosecution; iv. Arrest of A2 and subsequent recovery of M.Os.1 and 2 have not been substantiated by the prosecution by adducing unassailable evidence. The evidence of P.W.10 in this connection is not sufficient;
v. There is inconsistency between ocular witness and the medical evidence; and vi. The convening of family panchayat at Kanavai Karuppu temple and the participation of the appellants/accused 1 to 6 are not proved. Moreover, the involvement of the appellants/accused 1 and 2 in the criminality has not been established by the prosecution.
15. Mr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants/accused 3 to 6, has advanced his arguments on the following two grounds:
i. Finding of the Trial Court that all the appellants were having common object to kill the deceased Nagalingam has not been justified; and the testimonies of prosecution witnesses have not been properly appreciated; ii. Since there was no motive either to commit rioting or to kill the deceased Nagalingam, the findings of the Trial Court, with regard to the constructive liability under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C., as against the appellants/accused 3 to 6 is erroneous and misconception of the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 5 and hence liable to be set aside.
16. The appellants/accused 1 to 6 had been facing the charges under Sections 148, 324, 506(ii), 302, 302 r/w 109 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C. They were tried for the said offences. The prosecution, in order to substantiate it's case, has totally examined as nearly as 18 witnesses. During the course of their examination Exs.P1 to P24 and the material objects ranging from M.Os.1 to 3 were marked.
17. The kernel of the prosecution case is this:
17.1. P.Ws.1 to 8 and the appellants/accused 1 to 6 are closely related with each other. Infact, the deceased Nagalingam is the son of P.W.7 Narayanan. The appellants/accused 2, 3 & 5 are the brother-in-laws of P.W.1 Karumbachalam. The appellants/accused 1 & 6 are the son and daughter of the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai. The fourth appellant/accused Saravanan is the son-in-law of the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai. P.W.4 Kaliammal is the junior mother-in-law of P.W.1 Karumbachalam and grandmother of P.W.8 Pandi.
17.2. One Palaniammal, who is none other than the daughter of the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai has been given in marriage to P.W.8 Pandi. After their marriage, P.W.8 Pandi and his wife Palaniammal had been residing along with the fifth appellant/accused in a joint family at Devaseri. Since there was a strained relationship between him and his wife, P.W.8 Pandi had detached from the joint family of his father-in-law and came down to his parent's house along with his children and had been residing along with them. His wife Palaniammal did not come along with him as she had stayed back at her father's (A5) house.
17.3. That on 19.04.2007, at about 08.30 or 09.00 a.m., P.W.4 Kaliammal and her husband Vasanthan came to the house of P.W.1 Karumbachalam and represented him that the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai had approached them and requested to convene a Panchayat to sort out the family dispute of P.W.8 Pandi and his wife.
It was also decided to convene a Panchayat at a common place viz., Kanavai Karuppu Temple, situated near Gopalpatti Village.
17.4. In pursuant to their decision, P.W.1 to P.W.8 and the deceased Nagalingam had proceeded to Kanavai Karuppu Temple in a Van and reached there at 12.00 Noon. At about 02.00 p.m., the appellants/accused 1 to 6 along with ten others had arrived there. Whileso, the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai had asked P.W.1 Karumbachalam as to whether P.W.8 Pandi had come. For which, he had answered yes. Thereafter, the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai had asked P.W.1 Karumbachalam to wait for sometime and that he would be coming back in a short while. But, he came back only at 03.45 or 04.00 p.m. After his arrival, he had represented that his daughter Palaniammal had refused to go for separate family and therefore he had insisted P.W.8 Pandi to come and live along with his family. For which, P.W.8 Pandi had refused, saying that he had been living along with them for about ten years and that he was willing to go for separate family.
17.5. At that time, the deceased Nagalingam had told the fifth appellant/accused that Junior Paternal Uncle! Try to put them in a peaceful family life, or annul their marriage. On hearing this, the first appellant/accused Sekar, who was sitting by his side, had stood up and asked the deceased Nagalingam "You are talking too much. All would be set at right if you are done to death", by saying so, he had taken out a knife (M.O.1) from his hip, stared at the second appellant/accused Ravi and asked him "rpj;jg;gh mtid gpo".
17.6. On hearing this, the second appellant/accused Ravi had caught hold the deceased Nagalingam from behind. Whileso, the first appellant/accused Sekar had stabbed the deceased Nagalingam with the said Knife (which is used for cockfight) over his chest region. When he had made an another attempt to stab the deceased Nagalingam, P.W.1 Karumbachalam had rushed there and thwarted his attempt. Whileso, the third appellant/accused Murugan had stabbed him (P.W.1 Karumbachalam) over his left back. When he was making another attempt to stab him, P.W.1 Karumbachalam had pushed him away. When he had fallen down, the Knife, which was found in his hand, had inflicted a blood injury over his right index finger.
17.7. When P.W.2 Selvam, who is none other than the son of P.W.1 Karumbachalam, had intervened for his father's rescue, the second appellant/accused Ravi had cut him with an Aruval over his right forehead. When he had shouted at him, the second appellant/accused Ravi had again cut him with Aruval near his right elbow as well as over his right thigh.
17.8. The fourth appellant/accused Saravanan had aimed a cut with Aruval over P.W.3 Anand. When he had moved his head aside, that cut had fallen over his left cheek below left eye. When he was making another attempt to cut P.W.3 Anand, P.W.2 Selvam had pushed him away and as a result of which he had fallen over the Aruval, which was planted there as an offering. Whileso, he had sustained injury over his left dorsum. On seeing this, their grandmother P.W.4 Kaliammal had raised hue and cry and rushed there. Whileso, the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai had cut her with Knife over her left forearm.
17.9. When P.W.5 Muthulakshmi came running for the rescue of her father and brother viz., P.W.1 and P.W.3, the sixth appellant/accused Latha had cut her with Knife over her head and left arm. When the neighbours had rushed there, after hearing the screaming of P.Ws.1 to 5, the appellants/accused 1 to 6 had fled away from the scene of occurrence along with the crime weapons, after threatening them with dire consequence.
17.10. Thereafter, P.W.2 Selvam and P.W.3 Anand had brought the deceased Nagalingam along with other injured persons to Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital in a Bus. Then at about 04.50 p.m., P.W.13 Dr.Vignesh Raj (Ortho Specialist) had examined the deceased Nagalingam and during the course of his examination, he had found the following injuries on his person:
'V' shaped laceration over the anterior chest wall 1 X 1 c.m. right side. Right side air entry. But, reduced.
On X-Ray over chest, right sided haemothroax present. On C.T.Thorax (Ex.P10) it was found that, there was right sided hydro phemothrox gross pleural fluid collection, evident right lung upper lobe segments show obvious contusion changes, cotton wool flutty opacites only anterior segments of right lung visualized left lung apparently well pheumatised. There were multiple fractures of right sided ribs (R3 to R10). To that effect, P.W.13 Dr.Vignesh Raj had issued an accident register under Ex.P9. He has stated that the injuries sustained by the deceased Nagalingam could have been inflicted by M.O.1 Knife.
17.11. When P.W.13 Dr.Vignesh Raj, had examined P.W.2 Selvam, the following injuries were found on his person:
Abrasion over the right forearm, Lacerated injury over the vertex of scalp, Lacerated injury over the right femur. Wounds suturing done.
17.12. P.W.1 Karumbachalam had sustained the following injuries:
Incised injury over the back of chest. Bleeding was present.
17.13. P.W.5 Muthulakshmi had sustained the following injuries:
Abrasion over the left forearm.
Abrasion over the frontal region of scalp.
Wounds suturing done.
The above injuries were opined as simple in nature.
17.14. P.W.3 Anand had sustained the following injurie:
Lacerated injury over the left cheek.
Wound suturing done.
17.15. P.W.4 Kaliammal had sustained the following injuries:
Abrasion 1 X 0.5 c.m. over the posterior aspect of left forearm. The injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 5 are described as simple in nature and P.W.13 had also issued the accident registers in respect of the injuries sustained by P.Ws.1 to 5 ranging from Exs.P11 to P15 respectively.
17.16. Excepting the deceased Nagalingam, other injured persons were treated as out-patients and they were also discharged in the evening. In sofar as the deceased Nagalingam is concerned, after first-aid, he was referred to Madurai Apollo Hospital for further treatment.
17.17. That on 20.04.2007, at about 05.30 a.m., on receipt of an information from Dindigul Town North Police Station, P.W.17, Sub-Inspector of Police, attached to Sanarpatti Police Station had been to Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital and recorded a statement (Ex.P1) from P.W.1 Karumbachalam. Then she had come down to Sanarpatti Police Station and registered a case in Sanarpatti Police Station Crime No.145 of 2007 (Ex.P21) under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Subsequently, Exs.P1 and P21 were forwarded to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, and the copies of the same were also forwarded to the Police higher officials.
17.18. Then, P.W.17 had taken up the case for investigation and at about 08.00 a.m., she had been to the place of occurrence, inspected the same and prepared an observation mahazar and a rough sketch under Exs.P6 and P22 respectively, in the presence of P.W.11 Vellaisamy and one Selvam (not examined). Then, she had examined P.Ws.1 to 8 in Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital and recorded their respective statements.
17.19. At about 03.00 p.m., the injured Nagalingam was brought to Madurai Apollo Hospital and admitted as an inpatient by one Dr.Ramajayam. Since Dr.Ramajayam was not available in Madurai Apollo Hospital at present, P.W.9 Dr.K.R.Amarnath was deputed to depose in respect of the medical records (Ex.P2) relating to the deceased Nagalingam. Nagalingam had succumbed to injuries at about 04.45 p.m. A death intimation to that effect was given to Sanarpatti Police Station and on receipt of the death intimation, P.W.17 Sub-Inspector of Police, had been to Madurai Apollo Hospital and subsequently sent the dead body to the Mortuary of Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital.
17.20. At about 09.30 p.m., she came down to the Police Station and altered the section of law to one under Section 302 I.P.C. The alteration report (Ex.P16) was sent to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, through P.W.14 Head Constable. At about 10.00 p.m., she had entrusted the case records with P.W.18 Inspector of Police for further investigation.
17.21. That on 21.04.2007, P.W.18 had been to the Mortuary of Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital and conducted an inquest in the presence of the witnesses and after the completion of the inquest, he had prepared a report under Ex.P23.
Subsequently, he had sent the dead body for postmortem examination along with requisition under Ex.P24 through the Head Constable 1180 Mani. In pursuant to the requisition under Ex.P24, P.W.15 Dr.Natarajan had conducted the postmortem examination. During the course of his examination, he had found the following injuries on the person of the dead body:
i. A sutured stab injury 1.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X visceral deep noted on front of right side of chest, 4 c.m. above and medial to the nipple. The margins of the wound are regular and both ends are pointed. On dissection, the wound passes obliquely downwards, backwards and medially piercing the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves in the 3rd intercostal space measuring 1.0 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X through and through piercing the underlying pleura and upper lobe of right lung measuring 1.0 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X 1 c.m. and ends as a point. Right pleural cavity contains 800 ml. of fluid blood with clots. Left pleural cavity empty.
ii. Sutured drainage wound 2 c.ms X 0.5 X pleural cavity deep with drainage tube in situ is noted on the right 5th intercostal space in the level of mid axillary line.
Other findings:
Peritoneal cavity - empty; Pleural cavity - right pleural cavity - described, left pleural cavity empty; Pericardium - 15 ml. of straw colour fluid; Heart - both the chambers are empty; Coronaries - patent; Lungs - cut section pale; Larynx @ trachea - normal; Hyoid bone - intact; Stomach - contains 100 ml. of brown colour fluid, no specific smell, mucosa is pale; Liver, spleen @ kidneys-cut section pale; Small intestine - contains 20 ml. of bile stained fluid, no specific smell, mucosa pale; Bladder - empty; Brain - surface vessels pale, cut section pale.
17.22. After the completion of postmortem examination, P.W.15 Dr.Natarajan had opined that the deceased would appear to have died of stab injury to the chest and it's corresponding internal injuries.
17.23. Thereafter, P.W.18 Inspector of Police had examined some of the witnesses and recorded their respective statements. At about 03.30 p.m., on 21.04.2007, he had arrested the second appellant/accused Ravi, near Ermanaickenpatti bus stop situated at Dindicul-Natham main road in the presence of P.W.10 Ganesan and one Alagarsamy. On interrogation, he had voluntarily come forward and given a confessional statement, which was reduced into writing by P.W.18 Inspector of Police. Based on his disclosure statement (Ex.P3), the second appellant/accused Ravi had taken the witnesses to a thorny bush lying on the western side of the bus stop and taken out the Aruval from there and produced before P.W.18, which was recovered by him under the cover of a seizure mahazar (Ex.P5) at 04.30 p.m. 17.24. Besides this, the second accused/appellant Ravi had also identified and taken out a Knife (used for cock fight) and produced before P.W.18. He inturn had recovered the same under the cover of a seizure mahazar Ex.P4. Thereafter, the second accused was sent to judicial custody.
17.25. That on 22.04.2007, P.W.18 had examined the remaining witnesses and recorded their respective statements. That on 14.05.2007, P.W.18 had sent the crime weapons to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul through Form-
95. He had also given a requisition to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, under Ex.P7 requesting him to send the incriminating articles to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis.
17.26. That on 23.04.2007, at about 05.30 p.m., he had arrested the appellants 3 and 4/accused Murugan and Saravanan near Dindigul bus stop and sent them for being remanded to judicial custody.
17.27. Based on the order of the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, pursuant to the requisition under Ex.P7, P.W.12 Head Clerk attached to the learned Judicial Magistrate Court No.III, Dindigul, had sent the incriminating articles to the forensic science laboratory.
17.28. On receipt of the incriminating articles, P.W.16 Mahalakshmi, Scientific Assistant, attached to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, had examined them. After the completion of her examination, she had issued a Biological Report dated 21.05.2007 under Ex.P19 and a Serology Report dated 06.07.2007 under Ex.P20, which were received by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, on 18.07.2007.
17.29. That on 29.08.2007, P.W.18 had arrested the appellants 1, 5 & 6/accused, near Kanavai Karuppu Temple at 10.00 a.m., and sent them to Court for being remanded to judicial custody. Prior to their arrest, P.W.18 had examined the remaining witnesses including P.W.16 Mahalakshmi and recorded their statements. After the completion of his investigation, P.W.18 had laid a final report on 30.08.2007 before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul under Sections 148, 324, 506(ii), 302 r/w 109 and 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.
17.30. When the incriminating circumstances, arising out of the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, were put to the appellants/accused 1 to 6 to explain as contemplated under Section 313(i)(b) Cr.P.C., they had replied that this case was foisted against them. Even though they had claimed that they were going to examine witnesses on their side, nobody was examined and no documentary evidence was also adduced on their behalf.
17.31. On evaluating the evidences both oral and documentary, the learned Trial Judge has found the appellants/accused 1-6 guilty, convicted and sentenced as aforestated.
18. "To prove that an accused is a murderer is one of the most difficult tasks faced by a criminal lawyer. The mode of proof may take diverse forms, it may be by both direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. It may be through dying declaration, confession, evidence of near relations and so on. One or more modes of proof may be telescoped in a particular case. It may be borne in mind that burden of proving the case initially is on the prosecution which must prove it beyond reasonable doubt."
19. As stated by PHIPSON on Evidence in criminal cases the prosecution discharge their evidential burden by adducing sufficient evidence to raise a prima facie case against the accused. If no evidence is called for the defence the tribunal of fact must decide whether the prosecution has succeeded in discharging its legal burden by proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any defence evidence, the chances that the prosecution has so succeeded are greater. Hence, the accused may be said to be under an evidential burden if the prosecution has established a prima facie case. Discharge of the evidential burden by the defence is not a pre-requisite to an acquittal. The accused is entitled to be acquitted "if at the end of and on the whole of the case, there is a reasonable doubt created by the evidence given by either the prosecution or the prisoner". The principle that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the prisoner is part of the common law of England and no attempt to whittle it down can be entertained. It is an essential principle of our criminal law that a criminal charge has to be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The philosophy underlying this rule is the oft quoted maxim that it is better that ten guilty persons should escape than one innocent suffer."
20. In the given case on hand, as stated in the opening paragraphs, the prosecution witnesses 1 to 8 and the appellants/accused 1 to 6 are closely related with each other and there is no dispute on this fact. P.W.1 to P.W.5 are injured witnesses.
21. P.W.1 Karumbachalam has deposed that the third appellant/accused Murugan had stabbed him with knife on his left back. P.W.2 Selvam has deposed that the second appellant/accused Ravi had cut him with Aruval over his forehead. When he had shouted, he had also cut him near his right elbow as well as over his right thigh.
22. P.W.3 Anand has deposed that the fourth appellant/accused Saravanan had cut him with Aruval over his left cheek below left eye. P.W.4 Kaliammal has deposed that the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai had stabbed her over left forearm and P.W.5 Muthulakshmi has deposed that the sixth appellant/accused Latha had cut with a knife over her left forearm.
23. As per the case of prosecution, while the second appellant/accused Ravi had caught hold of the deceased Nagalingam from behind, the first appellant/accused Sekar, who is the son of the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai, had stabbed him with a cock-knife over right side of his chest. After first-aid at Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital, the deceased Nagalingam was referred to Madurai Apollo Hospital, where he had succumbed to injuries while he was on treatment.
24. P.W.6 Thothan, who is said to be the poojari of Kanavai Karuppu Temple, has not supported the case of the prosecution to the extent of their expectation.
However, it is obvious to note here that he was not treated as hostile and the learned Public Prosecutor has also failed to cross-examine him after getting permission from the Trial Court. But, he was cross-examined on behalf of the appellants/accused 1 to 6.
25. P.W.6, in his chief-examination, would state that he was informed that both the parties had come to the temple for convening a Panchayat and that he had come to the temple only at 06.30 p.m., whileso, he was put to understand that both parties had been insisting each other to make a promise and only on that ground a problem was arisen.
26. To a question, which was put to him on behalf of the appellants/accused 1 to 6, P.W.6 in his cross-examination has answered that it was decided by the village people that no panchayat should be convened in the temple. But, this isolated answer given by P.W.6 would not falsify the prosecution story and equally it does not mean that no such Panchayat was held in Kanavai Karuppu temple.
27. Even though it is stated that the appellants/accused 1, 3, 5 and 6 had used knife and the remaining appellants/accused 2 and 4 had used Aruval, P.W.18 Investigating Officer was able to recover M.O.1 Cock-Knife and M.O.2 Aruval at the instance of the second appellant/accused when he was arrested in the presence of P.W.10 Ganesan and one Alagarsamy.
28. As per the case of the prosecution, the appellants/accused 1 to 6 had assembled at Kanavai Karuppu Temple with deadly weapons with the common object of committing murder of the deceased Nagalingam under the guise of Panchayat. In furtherance of their common object, the first appellant/accused Sekar had stabbed the deceased Nagalingam with M.O.1 Cock-Knife while the latter was caught hold by the second appellant/accused Ravi and following that incident there was a rioting in which all the other appellants/accused had attacked the injured witnesses viz., P.W.1 to 5 as afore-stated.
29. The case of the defence is that no panchayat was convened on 19.04.2007 at Kanavai Karuppu Temple as alleged by the prosecution. One Amudha, who is the elder sister of the deceased Nagalingam is given in marriage to P.W.2 Selvam and that there was a strained relationship between them. On the fateful day, the deceased Nagalingam had asked P.W.2 Selvam as to why he had not brought his sister to the temple and on account of this reason, a verbal altercation was erupted between them, which resulted in scuffling and at that time somebody belonging to the family of P.W.1 might have stabbed the deceased Nagalingam and as a result of which he had succumbed to the injuries in the hospital.
30. Merely throwing a suggestion on the prosecution witnesses would not be sufficient to weaken the case of the prosecution. The appellant/accused must have taken greater effort to substantiate their defence theory. As stated by PHIPSON on Evidence, as quoted herein before, in the absence of any defence evidence, the chances that the prosecution has so succeeded are greater. Therefore, the appellants/accused 1 to 6 are under the evidential burden to substantiate their defence theory. Ofcourse, it is not a pre-requisite to an acquittal.
31. Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, has adverted to that there was no motive for the alleged occurrence. In this connection, he has drawn the attention of this Court to the cross-examination of P.W.1, wherein he has admitted that there was no previous enmity between Vasanthan and P.W.4 Kaliammal's family on the one part and the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai's family on the other part.
32. As admitted by P.W.1 Karumbachalam, he had not lodged any complaint before the Police Station. But, he was examined by P.W.17 Sub-Inspector of Police, while, he was in the hospital and his statement was recorded and only based on his statement (Ex.P1), the case was registered (Ex.P21).
33. The learned senior counsel has pointed out that P.W.1 Karumbachalam, in his cross-examination, had admitted that the Sanarpatti Police Station was located just at the distance of 8 Kms. from Kanavai Karuppu Temple. Further, P.W.1 has continued to depose that while they were on the way to hospital, a person was alighted for lodging the complaint, but, nobody was available in the Police Station. Further, he has stated that he did not know as to whether P.W.4 Kaliammal had been to Sanarpatti Police Station to lodge a complaint.
34. In this connection, a suggestion was put to P.W.1 as if P.W.4 Kaliammal had lodged a complaint before Sanarpatti Police Station. But, her compliant was not taken up, instead, a Police informer namely Murugan was sent along with P.W.4 Kaliammal to the hospital and he had only admitted all the injured persons in the hospital. This suggestion was however denied by P.W.1 Karumbachalam.
35. P.W.13 Dr.P.Vignesh Raj, in his chief-examination, has stated that on 19.04.2007, at about 04.50 p.m., when he was on duty at Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital, the deceased Nagalingam was brought to him for the injuries sustained by him. On enquiry, he was informed that 15 persons had assaulted with knife. His evidence has further revealed that the remaining injured witnesses were also brought to him for the injuries sustained by them.
36. In his cross-examination, P.W.13, has stated that in the hospital records it was stated that one Murugan had brought the injured persons to the Hospital. He has also stated that an intimation was given to Police in respect of the occurrence. However, he would state that no materials were available in the record to show as to who had given intimation to the Police. Infact, in Ex.P9 Accident Register, issued in respect of the deceased Nagalingam, in a particular Column i.e., "Whether informed to the Police", it has been stated as Yes. However, no reference is available as to when and by whom the intimation was given to the Police.
37. P.W.17, Sub-Inspector of Police, has stated in her chief-examination that on 20.04.2007, at about 05.30 a.m., she had received a message from Dindigal Town North Police Station and thereafter she had been to Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital and recorded a statement from P.W.1 Karumbachalam, who was said to have been on treatment in the said hospital.
38. In this connection, Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, has raised the following two questions:
i. As per the evidence of P.W.13 Dr.P.Vignesh Raj, excepting the deceased Nagalingam, the other five injured persons viz., P.Ws.1 to 5 were treated as out-patient and discharged in the evening i.e., in the evening of 19.04.2007. If they were really discharged in the evening of 19.04.2007, how P.W.17 could have recorded the statement of P.W.1 Karumbachalam, at 05.30 a.m., on 20.04.2007? and ii. After the occurrence, all the injured persons were proceeding to hospital in a bus, after passing Sanarpatti Police Station. If it was so, why no complaint was lodged before the Sanarpatti Police Station?
39. The learned senior counsel has further maintained that as per the case of the prosecution, the occurrence was taken place on 19.04.2007 at about 04.00 p.m. At about 04.50 p.m., all the injured persons were brought to Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital as it revealed from the evidence of P.W.13. But, P.W.17 Sub-Inspector of Police had stated that she had received a message from Dindigul Town North Police Station at 05.30 a.m., on 20.04.2007.
40. Further, he would argue that as per Ex.P9 Accident Register and as per the evidence of P.W.13, after examination of injured persons, an intimation was given to the concerned Police probably it might have been within 05.00 to 05.30 p.m., But, P.W.17 was able to record the statement from P.W.1 only at 05.30 a.m., on 20.04.2007.
41. In this connection, Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, has adverted to that there was an abnormal delay in recording the statement from P.W.1 Karumbachalam under Ex.P1 complaint as well as in registering the case under Ex.P21 first information report.
42. On a cursory perusal of Ex.P21 printed first information report, it is thus clear that the occurrence was taken place at 04.00 p.m., on 19.04.2007 and as per Column No.3(b), the information was received by the Sanarpatti Police Station only at 07.00 a.m., on 20.04.2007 No sooner than the receipt of the information, the case appears to have been registered in Crime No.145 of 2007, under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C.
43. With regard to this, the learned senior counsel has raised another question as to why there was a delay of 1 + hours in registering the case, when P.W.17 was able to record the statement of P.W.1 at 05.30 a.m., on 20.04.2007. He has also pointed out that already there was a delay of 13 + hours since the alleged occurrence was said to have been taken place at 04.00 p.m., on 19.04.2007.
44. Despite the fact that the deceased Nagalingam was admitted in Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital at 04.50 p.m., on 19.04.2007 after first-aid, as per the evidence of P.W.13, he was referred to Madurai Apollo Hospital at 03.30 p.m., for further treatment.
45. P.W.9 Dr.K.R.Amarnath, attached to Madurai Apollo Hospital, was summoned by the Trial Court to speak about Ex.P2 medical records relating to the admission of the deceased Nagalingam. From his evidence, it is revealed that on 20.04.2007, at about 03.30 p.m., the deceased Nagalingam was admitted, as an inpatient by one Dr.Ramajayam. At the time of admission, he was unconscious, gasping breathing, pulse rate was 30/Min. and B.P.was not recordable and therefore an emergency intubation was done. However, he had succumbed to injuries at about 04.15 p.m.
46. In this connection, a death intimation was given to Sanarpatti Police Station. This has been admitted by P.W.17 Sub-Inspector of Police saying that she had received a telephonic message from Madurai Apollo Hospital and thereby it was informed that at about 04.45 p.m., the deceased Nagalingam had passed away. Then, she had been to Apollo Hospital and sent the dead body to Madurai Rajaji Government Hospital Mortuary and at about 09.30 p.m., she had added Section 302 I.P.C., and in this connection, she had also prepared an express alteration report under Ex.P16 and sent the same through P.W.14 Head Constable to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul. As per the evidence of P.W.14, he had handed over the express alteration report (Ex.P16) to the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, at about 10.30 p.m.
47. On perusal of Ex.P16, we find that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, appears to have received the alteration report under Ex.P16 at 10.30 p.m.
48. It is obvious to note here that the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, appears to have received the first information report (Ex.P21) at 05.20 p.m., on 20.04.2007. But, on verification of Ex.P1 complaint, we find that though the learned Judicial Magistrate has signed on 20.04.2007, he did not specify the time to show at what time Ex.P1 complaint was received by him.
49. Despite the instructions given by the this Court time and again and clearly instructed in magisterial guide, the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, had miserably failed to specify the time underneath his signature.
50. In the accident register Ex.P9, pertaining to the deceased Nagalingam and Exs.P.11 to 15 relating to P.W.2, P.W.1, P.W.5, P.W.3 and P.W.4, it is stated that one Murugan had admitted them in Rajarajeswari Hospitl. With reference to the said Murugan, it is the case of defence, as if P.W.4 Kaliammal had been to Sanarpatti Police Station for lodging complaint. But, her complaint was not taken up by the Police officials, who were present there. Instead, a Police informer by name Murugan was deputed to take the injured persons to Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital. This suggestion was denied by the prosecution witnesses. However, the above specified accident registers would cumulatively suggest that one Murugan had brought all the injured persons and admitted in Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital. Indeed, the said Murugan has not been examined by the prosecuting agency for the reasons best known to them.
51. In this connection, Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel has argued that the non-examination of the said Murugan would cause a dent in the case of the prosecution and that even though the above facts were projected before the Trial Court, they were totally turned down by the learned Trial Judge, had infact declined to extend the benefits of doubts to the appellants/accused 1 to 6.
52. With regard to the receipt of message from Dindigul Town North Police Station, in respect of the injured persons, who were admitted in Rajarajeswari Hospital, P.W.17 in her cross-examination has stated that she was not able to remember as to who had given the message from Dindigul Town North Police Station. She has also made it clear that the receipt of message, from Dindigul Town North Police Station had not been entered in the general diary, which is being maintained in the police station. The Police officer, who had given the message from Dindigul Town North Police Station has also not been cited as a witness in this case.
53. She has further deposed in her cross-examination that she had sent the printed first information report under Ex.P21 to the Court at 07.00 a.m., on 20.04.2007. But, she is not able to specify the name of the constable through whom, the first information report was sent. Despite the fact that the first information was sent to Court at 07.00 a.m., on the above said date, unfortunately it was received by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, at 05.20 p.m. She has also stated that it would take 15 minutes to reach the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul from Sanarpatti Police Station. When such being the case, she has not even satisfactorily explained as to why there was an enormous delay in reaching the first information report at the hands of Magistrate from Sanarpatti Police Station.
54. With regard to the evidence of P.W.17 Sub-Inspector of Police, with reference to the first information report, Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel would submit that the enormous delay in lodging the complaint, in traveling the first information report as well as the alteration report to the learned Judicial Magistrate's Court No.III, Dindigul, from Sanarpatti Police Station itself would be sufficient to show that the entire case of the prosecution case was a fiction of fertile imagination of the prosecuting agency after due deliberation.
55. Further, he has submitted that the complaint as well as the first information report could have been prepared belatedly after confabulation and that the Trial Court had lost sight upon the latches and lacuna on the part of the prosecution.
56. Besides this, the learned senior counsel has also maintained that the deceased Nagalingam was admitted in Rajarajeswari Hospital, Dindigul at 04.50 p.m., on 19.04.2007 and as per the records he was shifted to Madurai Apollo Hospital at 03.30 p.m., on the next day i.e., on 20.04.2007. He had succumbed to injuries only at 04.15 p.m., on 20.04.2007. But, prior to his death, when he was undergoing treatment at Rajarajeswari Hospital, Dindigul, no effort was taken by the prosecuting agency to record his dying declaration and that if his dying declaration was recorded it would have unfolded several untold facts.
57. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the following decisions:
i. Meharaj Sing vs. State of U.P., reported in (1994) 5 SCC 188; ii. Secretary @ Mara Naicker & 7 others vs. State by Sub Inspector of Police, reported in 2005-2-L.W.(Crl.) 779;
iii. Subramani @ Manian vs. State rep.by Inspector of Police, reported in 2005- 2-L.W.(Crl.) 787;
iv. Nadimuthu and others vs. State by Public Prosecutor, reported in 1997(2) MWN (Cr.) 149;
v. Kanagaraj vs. State, reported in (2011) 3 MLJ (Crl); and vi. Rajeevan vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2003 SCC (Cri) 751.
58. In Meharaj Sing's case (cited 1st supra), while speaking on behalf of the Division Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Dr.A.S.ANAND, J. has observed as under:
"FIR in a criminal case and particularly in a murder case is a vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of appreciating the evidence led at the trial. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the FIR is to obtain the earliest information regarding the circumstance in which the crime was committed, including the names of the actual culprits and the parts played by them, the weapons, if any used, as also the names of the eye witnesses, if any. Delay in lodging the FIR often results in embellishment, which is a creature of an afterthought. On account of delay, the FIR not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger also creeps in of the introduction of a coloured version or exaggerated story. With a view to determine whether the FIR was lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, the courts generally look for certain external checks. One of the checks is the receipt of the copy of the FIR, called a special report in a murder case, by the local Magistrate. If this report is received by the Magistrate late it can give rise to an inference that the FIR was not lodged at the time it is alleged to have been recorded, unless, of course the prosecution can offer a satisfactory explanation for the delay in dispatching or receipt of the copy of the FIR by the local Magistrate. The second external check equally important is the sending of the copy of the FIR along with the dead body and its reference in the inquest report. Even though the inquest report, prepared under Section 174 CrPC, is aimed at serving a statutory function, to lend credence to the prosecution case, the details of the FIR and the gist of statements recorded during inquest proceedings get reflected in the report. The absence of those details is indicative of the fact that the prosecution story was still in an embryo state and had not been given any shape and that the FIR came to be recorded later on after due deliberations and consultations and was then ante-timed to give it the colour of a promptly lodged FIR."
59. In Rajeevan's case (cited 6th supra), a Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India, headed by S.RAJENDRA BABU, J., has made reference to Thulia Kali vs. State of T.N, reported in (1972) 3 SCC 393 : 1972 SCC (Cri) 543, wherein the delayed filing of FIR and its consequences were discussed. In paragraph No.12 of Thulia Kali's case, the Supreme Court has observed that:
"First information report in a criminal case is an extremely vital and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The importance of the above report can hardly be overestimated from the standpoint of the accused. The object of insisting upon prompt lodging of the report to the police in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early information regarding the circumstances in which the crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits and the part played by them as well as the names of eye witnesses present at the scene of occurrence. Delay in lodging the first information report quite often results in embellishment which is a creature of afterthought. On account of delay, the report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, danger creeps in of the introduction of coloured version, exaggerated account of concocted story as a result of deliberation and consultation. It is, therefore, essential that the delay in lodging of the first information report should be satisfactorily explained."
60. After referring the decisions cited above, Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, has adverted to that in sofar as the given case is concerned, the alleged occurrence is shrouded with suspicion, which has not been satisfactorily displaced or dispelled by the prosecuting agency.
61. As revealed from the accident registers under Exs.P9, P10 to P15, excepting the injury sustained by the deceased Nagalingam, the injury sustained by P.Ws.1 to 5 were opined as simple in nature.
62. P.Ws.1 to 5 have categorically stated in their respective testimonies that the first appellant/accused had stabbed the deceased Nagalingam over his right side of chest with Cock-knife (used to tie with the legs of cock during cock fight), while he was caught hold by the second appellant/accused from behind.
63. P.Ws.1 to 5 have clinchingly deposed that when P.W.8 Pandi had not accepted to come and live along with the fifth appellant/accused's family along with his wife and children, the deceased Nagalingam had told the fifth appellant either to unite P.W.8 Pandi with his wife to lead a peaceful family life or annul their marriage. (rpj;jg;gh nUtiua[k; Brh;j;J thH ita[A;fs; ny;iybad;why; jPh;j;J tpl;LtpLA;fs;), on hearing this, the first appellant/accused, who was sitting by his side had stood up and asked the deceased as ePjhd; buhk;g BgRfpd;wha;, cd;id Kjypy; Koj;Jtpl;lhy; rhpahfptpLk;. While saying so, he had taken up the knife (M.O.1 Cock-knife) from his hip stared at the second appellant/accused Ravi and asked him as rpj;jg;gh mtid gpo. Whileso, the second appellant/accused Ravi had caught hold the deceased Nagalingam from behind. At that time, the first appellant/accused Sekar had stabbed the deceased over his right chest with knife. All the injured witnesses viz., P.Ws.2 to 5 have corroborated the evidence of P.W.1.
64. On coming to the evidence of P.W.13 Dr.P.Vignesh Raj, attached to Rajarajeswari Hospital, Dindigul, he has stated during the course of his examination that he had found the following injuries on the person of the deceased Nagalingam:
'V' shaped laceration over the anterior chest wall 1 X 1 c.m. right side. Right side air entry. But, reduced.
On X-Ray over chest, right sided haemothroax present. On C.T.Thorax, there was right sided hydro phemothrox gross pleural fluid collection evident right lung upper lobe segments show obvious contusion changes, cotton wool flutty opacites only anterior segments of right lung visualized left lung apparently well pheumatised.
There were multiple fractures of right sided ribs (R3 to R10).
65. Apart from this, P.W.13 has also stated in Ex.P9 Accident Register that at the time of admission the deceased Nagalingam was conscious and complaining of chest pain and there was difficult to breath. Ex.P2 is the medical records relating to the deceased Nagalingam maintained in Madurai Apollo Hospital, wherein it is stated that he was unconscious, gasping breathing, pulse rate was 30/Min. and B.P.was not recordable and therefore emergency intubation was done.
66. During the course of his examination, P.W.15 Dr.Natarajan, who happened to conduct postmortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Nagalingam, has stated that he had found the following injuries on the person of the deceased Nagalingam i. A sutured stab injury 1.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X visceral deep noted on front of right side of chest, 4 c.m. above and medial to the nipple. The margins of the wound are regular and both ends are pointed. On dissection, the wound passes obliquely downwards, backwards and medially piercing the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves in the 3rd intercostal space measuring 1.0 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X through and through piercing the underlying pleura and upper lobe of right lung measuring 1.0 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X 1 c.m. and ends as a point. Right pleural cavity contains 800 ml. of fluid blood with clots. Left pleural cavity empty.
ii. Sutured drainage wound 2 c.ms X 0.5 X pleural cavity deep with drainage tube in situ is noted on the right 5th intercostal space in the level of mid auxiliary line.
67. After completion of postmortem examination, P.W.15 Dr.Natarajan had given his opinion saying that the deceased would appear to have died of stab injury to the chest and it's corresponding internal injuries.
68. M.O.1 Cock-knife was shown to P.W.13 during the course of his cross- examination and a question was also put to him as to whether there was any possibility of inflicting such wound over the chest of Nagalingam by M.O.1. For this question, he had answered affirmatively. For an another question, as to whether there was any possibility of causing fracture of 3 to 10 ribs by giving single stab blow with M.O.1. For this question, he has answered that it was not possible in a single stab.
69. As per the evidence of P.W.15 Dr.Natarajan and Ex.P17 postmortem report, two injuries were seen on the right side chest of the deceased.
70. In this connection, P.W.15 Dr.Natarajan has stated in his cross-examination that the second wound is a doctor made wound to drain the bleeding of blood from the first injury and also to help the doctor to provide medical treatment to the patient. He would further state that the first wound i.e., the stab injury had pierced the upper lobe of right lung to the extent of 1 c.m. Therefore, he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of stab injury to the chest and it's corresponding internal injuries.
71. It is more significant to note here that the fracture of ribs (R3 to R10) does not reflect in the postmortem report. Therefore, it is implied that though there were multiple fractures of ribs 3 to 10 on the right side of the chest of the deceased, the death was not caused due to the fracture of ribs. But due to the first stab injury, as seen from Ex.P17 postmortem report and it's corresponding internal injuries i.e., piercing on upper lobe of right lung to the extent of 1 c.m. It is also more relevant to note that the upper lobe of right lung was not ruptured by the fractured ribs. But, it was pierced by M.O.1 knife to the extent of 1 c.m.
72. To a question, P.W.13 Dr.P.Vigneshraj has answered in his cross-examination that the injury on the right side of chest of the deceased Nagalingam could have been inflicted by M.O.1 knife. But, he has stated that there was no possibility of fracture of ribs 3 to 10 on the right side by the single stab with M.O.1 knife.
73. In this regard, we would like to place it on record that normally blunt force is the common cause for the fracture of ribs. Rib injuries typically occur when the chest is directly hit. It is thus clear that it will only happen if there has been a great deal of blunt force.
74. We have carefully perused the inquest report prepared by P.W.18 the investigating officer. In Column No.XV, he has stated that the first appellant/accused Sekar had stabbed the deceased Nagalingam twice over his right side chest with M.O.1 Knife. He has not clearly explained the fact as to from where he had got the source of information to say that the first appellant/accused Sekar had stabbed the deceased twice. Ofcourse, as stated by P.W.15, two injuries were found on the right side of the deceased.
75. In this connection, P.W.15 has given a vivid account that the first injury alone was the stab injury inflicted on the right side chest of the deceased, whereas the second injury was the Doctor made injury i.e. called drainage wound so as to provide effective treatment to the patient. Ofcourse, the investigating officer P.W.18 is not an expert like P.W.15. Therefore, no such weightage could be given to Column No.XV of the inquest report Ex.P23.
76. An investigation under Section 174 Cr.P.C., is limited in scope and is confined to the ascertainment of the apparent cause of death. It is concerned with discovering whether in a given case the death was accidental, suicidal or homicidal or caused by animal and in what manner or by what weapon or instrument the injuries on the body appear to have been inflicted. It is for this limited purpose that persons acquainted with the facts of the case are summoned and examined under Section 175 Cr.P.C. The details of the overt acts are not necessary to be recorded in the inquest report. The question regarding the details as to how the deceased was assaulted or who had assaulted him or under what circumstances he was assaulted or who are the witnesses of the assault is foreign to the ambit and scope of proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C.
77. From the above context, it is manifested that the purpose of preparing the inquest report is only to notice as to whether the murder committed was homicidal in nature or not and not for making a note otherwise.
78. As rightly argued by Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, when the deceased Nagalingam was admitted in the Intensive Care Unit of Dindigul Rajarajeswari Hospital, neither P.W.17 nor the Duty Doctor attached to the said Hospital had made any attempt to record his dying declaration.
79. With reference to arrest and recovery of M.Os.1 and 2, Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, has submitted that M.O.1 knife was said to have been employed by the first appellant/accused in the crime as per the case of the prosecution and if it was so, how M.O.1 knife could have been recovered at the instance of the second appellant/accused Ravi as M.O.1 knife was found to be in the possession of the first appellant/accused Sekar. Therefore, he had suspected the arrest of the second appellant/accused Ravi and the subsequent recovery of M.O.1 knife as well as M.O.2 Aruval.
80. It is manifested from the records that totally two material objects were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai. They are:
i. M.O.1 Knife; and ii. M.O.2 T-Shirt, which was found on the person of the dead body of the deceased Nagalingam.
81. As per Ex.P18 requisition, dated 14.05.2007, given by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.III, Dindigul, to the Assistant Director, Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, only two incriminating articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. P.W.16 Scientific Assistant has also stated that she had received only two material objects viz., M.O.1 knife and M.O.3 T-Shirt.
82. In this regard, Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel has raised a question as to why M.O.2 Aruval was not sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Madurai, if it was really recovered by the investigating officer P.W.18 along with M.O.1 knife at the instance of second appellant/accused Ravi on 21.04.2007? Therefore, he has submitted that the non-sending of M.O.2 Aruval to the chemical examination would draw an inference that M.O.2 could have been planted subsequently to suit the convenience of the prosecution case.
83. On a harmonious reading of the evidence adduced by P.W.16 Scientific Assistant, Exs.P19 and 20 viz., Biological Report dated 21.05.2007 and Serology Report dated 06.07.2007, it is revealed that blood was detected on Item No.2 i.e., M.O.3 T-Shirt, but not on Item No.1 i.e., M.O.1 knife. In Ex.P20 Serology Report dated 06.07.2007, it is stated that the blood stain detected on M.O.3 T- Shirt was found to be human origin and that the result of grouping is inconclusive.
84. With regard to non-detection of blood on M.O.1 knife, Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, would submit that the evidence of P.W.16 and Exs.P19 and 20 would raise a presumption that M.O.1 could not have been used by the first appellant/accused Sekar to stab the deceased Nagalingam over his right chest as alleged by the prosecution.
85. He has also drawn our attention to the evidence given by P.W.13, Dr.P.Vigneshraj, who has first attended on the deceased Nagalingam on 19.04.2007. After examining the injuries found on the person of the deceased Nagalingam, in Ex.P9 accident register, he has stated that a 'V' shaped laceration, measuring 1 X 1 c.m., was found on the anterior right chest wall.
86. In this regard, Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, has argued that as per the case of prosecution, the following two types of injuries were inflicted to the deceased:
i. 'V' shaped laceration over the anterior chest wall; and ii. Fracture on the right side ribs i.e. R3 to R10.
87. With regard to the first injury viz., 'V' shaped injury, he has canvassed that M.O.1 knife, which was said to have been recovered by P.W.18 at the instance of the second accused could not have caused 'V' shaped injury and that failure on the part of P.W.18 investigating officer to recover 'V' shaped weapon would go to the very root of the prosecution and in consequent thereof the whole prosecution story was scattered into pieces. He has also added that P.W.13 has stated that a 'V' shaped laceration measuring 1 x 1 c.m. Was found on the right chest of the deceased; where as in Ex.P17 postmortem certificate P.W.15 has stated that a sutured stab injury measuring 1.5 c.m., X 0.5 c.m., x Visceral deep was found on the front of right side chest of the deceased. In this connection, he would submit that P.W.15 postmortem doctor had conflicted with the evidence of P.W.13 Dr.Vigneshraj. He has also pointed out that M.O.1 knife would not have caused laceration.
88. On the other hand, Mr.R.Ramachandran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has drawn our attention to the evidence of P.W.15 as well as Ex.P17 postmortem certificate and submitted that P.W.15 has clearly stated in Ex.P17 postmortem certificate that a sutured stab injury measuring 1.5 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X visceral deep was noted on the front of right side of chest, 4 c.m. above and medial to the nipple. The margins of the wound were regular and both ends were pointed. On dissection, it was found that the wound passed obliquely downwards, backwards and medially piercing the underlying muscles, vessels and nerves in the 3rd intercostal space measuring 1.0 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X through and through piercing the underlying pleura and upper lobe of right lung measuring 1.0 c.m. X 0.5 c.m. X 1 c.m. and ended as a point.
89. With reference to Injury No.1, as seen in Ex.P17, we have called for M.O.1 knife and carefully examined and made a comparative study with the first injury specified in Ex.P17 postmortem certificate. After careful analysis and having gone through Ex.P17, the evidence of P.W.15 as well as the testimonies of P.W.1 to 5, we are of considered view that the first injury could have been caused by M.O.1 knife. But, non-finding of blood on M.O.1 knife will not in any way cause prejudice to the case of the prosecution as the medical evidence is fitted in fair congruence with the injured eye-witnesses viz., P.Ws.1 to 5.
90. Mr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused 3 to 6, has submitted that as alleged by the prosecuting agency, the appellants were not the members of unlawful assembly and that they were not having any common object to commit any crime muchless for the commission of murder of the deceased and therefore the finding of the Trial Court under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C., to bring the alleged act of the appellants/accused under the orbit of vicarious liability was absolutely wrong as there was no pre-meeting of mind for the commission of crime. Even the prosecution was also not able to establish the allegation of unlawful assembly with the common object of committing rioting as well as for committing murder of the deceased Nagalingam and therefore, the question of constructive liability under Section 149 I.P.C., would not arise.
91. He has also argued that no blood was recovered from the place of occurrence, and that the finding of the Trial Court under Section 324 I.P.C., as against the appellants/accused 2 to 6, was also improper and hence he has urged to set aside the finding of the Trial Court.
92. On the other hand, Mr.R.Ramachandran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has submitted that the testimonies of P.W.1 to P.W.5 were convincing, cogent and corroborated with each other and that their testimonies were consistent with the medical evidence and since they had clinchingly identified M.O.1 knife and M.O.2 aruval, the Trial Court had correctly given a finding, which resulted in the conviction and sentence as against the appellants/accused 1 to 6 and therefore the order of conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Trial Judge as against the appellants/accused 1 to 6 did not require any interference of this Court.
93. He has also submitted that the injuries sustained by the appellants 3 and 4 had been satisfactorily explained by P.W.1 and other witnesses and hence he has urged to dismiss the appeals.
94. We have carefully considered the submissions made by Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants/accused 1 and 2; Mr.K.Vellaisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused 3 to 6 and the submissions made by Mr.R.Ramachandran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also appreciated and scrutinized the testimonies of prosecution witnesses.
95. We find that there is a delay in recording the statement of P.W.1 Karumbachalam, in registering the case and in reaching Exs.P1 and P21 as well as the express alteration report under Ex.P16 to the concerned Judicial Magistrate's Court. However, in the light of the evidences adduced by the prosecution witnesses particularly in the light of the evidences given by P.Ws.1 to 5 and the surrounding circumstances, in which they were taken to Hospital, we are of considered view that much weight could not be attached with the delay as it has been pale into insignificance. The critical condition, in which the deceased Nagalingam was admitted in ICU, has to be taken into consideration. We also find that there is no embellishment or exaggeration in the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 5.
96. Admittedly, P.Ws.1 to 5 are closely related to each other and they are also closely related to the appellants/accused. As addressed by Mr.N.Natarajan, learned senior counsel, no independent witness was examined on the part of the prosecution to substantiate and corroborate the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 5. In this regard, we would like to say that since P.Ws.1 to 5 being injured witnesses, their testimonies do not require any corroboration as their testimonies inspire confidence.
97. In Pyara vs. State, reported in 1997 Cri LJ 1065 (Raj), only an interested witness had seen the whole incident. No other independent witness was examined in that case. Therefore, it was observed that the non-production independent witness will not vitiate the whole prosecution.
98. Further, we would like to say that minor contradictions in the statement of witnesses not fatal for prosecution. The omission in the police statement viz., in the evidence given by P.Ws.17 and 18, by itself would not necessarily render the testimony of witness unreliable. When the version given by the witness in the Court is different in materials from that disclosed in his earlier statements, the case of the prosecution become doubtful and not otherwise. Minor contradictions are bound to appear in the statements of truthful witnesses as memory sometimes plays false and the sense of observation differ from person to person. The omissions in the earlier statement if found to be of trivial details, as in the present case, the same would not cause any dent in the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 5 as well as P.Ws.17 and 18. Even if there is contradiction of statement of a witness on any material point, that is not the ground to reject the whole of their testimonies. This proposition of law has been laid down by the Honourable Apex Court in Narayan Chetanram Chaudhry vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in AIR 2000 SC 3352.
99. Similarly, when a Court has to appreciate the evidences given by relatives, it has to be extremely careful and cautious, while appreciating such evidences. But, their evidence need not be and cannot be discarded on the sole ground that the witnesses happen to be the relative of the deceased.
100. With regard to constructive liability, under Section 149 I.P.C., the Mr.R.Ramachandran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, during the course of his arguments, has placed reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Ramachandran and others vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2011 SAR (Criminal) 941, wherein His Lordship Honourable Dr.JUSTICE B.S.CHAUHAN, while speaking on behalf of the Division Bench, has held in Paragraph Nos.10 to 12 as under:
"10. Section 149 IPC has essentially two ingredients viz. (i) offence committed by any member of an unlawful assembly consisting five or more members and (ii) such offence must be committed in prosecution of the common object (under Section 141 IPC) of the assembly or members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of the common object.
11. For "common object", it is not necessary that there should be a prior concert in the sense of a meeting of the members of the unlawful assembly, the common object may form on spur of the moment; it is enough if it is adopted by all the members and is shared by all of them. In order that the case may fall under the first part the offence committed must be connected immediately with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which the accused were members. [Vide: Bhanwar Singh & Ors. v. State of M.P., (2008) 16 SCC 657].
12. Even if the offence committed is not in direct prosecution of the common object of the assembly, it may yet fall under second part of Section 149 IPC if it can be held that the offence was such as the members knew was likely to be committed. The expression 'know' does not mean a mere possibility, such as might or might not happen. For instance, it is a matter of common knowledge that if a body of persons go armed to take forcible possession of the land, it would be right to say that someone is likely to be killed and all the members of the unlawful assembly must be aware of that likelihood and would be guilty under the second part of Section 149 IPC."
101. His Lordship has also made reference to the following decisions in Paragraph Nos.16 to 19 in the above cited decision:
16. In K.M. Ravi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, (2009) 16 SC 337, this Court observed that mere presence or association with other members alone does not per se be sufficient to hold every one of them criminally liable for the offences committed by the others unless there is sufficient evidence on record to show that each intended to or knew the likelihood of commission of such an offending act.
17. Similarly in State of U.P. v. Krishanpal & Ors., (2008) 16 SCC 73, this Court held that once a membership of an unlawful assembly is established it is not incumbent on the prosecution to establish whether any specific overt act has been assigned to any accused. Mere membership of the unlawful assembly is sufficient and every member of an unlawful assembly is vicariously liable for the acts done by others either in prosecution of common object or members of assembly knew were likely to be committed.
18. In Amerika Rai & Ors. v. State of Bihar, (2011) 4 SCC 677, this Court opined that for a member of unlawful assembly having common object what is liable to be seen is as to whether there was any active participation and the presence of all the accused persons was with an active mind in furtherance of their common object. The law of vicarious liability under Section 149 IPC is crystal clear that even the mere presence in the unlawful assembly, but with an active mind, to achieve the common object makes such a person vicariously liable for the acts of the unlawful assembly.
19. Regarding the application of Section 149, the following observations from Charan Singh v. State of U.P., (2004) 4 SCC 205, are very relevant:
13. ... The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141. ... The word `object' means the purpose or design and, in order to make it `common', it must be shared by all.
In other words, the object should be common to the persons, who compose the assembly, that is to say, they should all be aware of it and concur in it. A common object may be formed by express agreement after mutual consultation, but that is by no means necessary. It may be formed at any stage by all or a few members of the assembly and the other members may just join and adopt it. Once formed, it need not continue to be the same. It may be modified or altered or abandoned at any stage. The expression `in prosecution of common object' as appearing in Section 149 has to be strictly construed as equivalent to `in order to attain the common object'. It must be immediately connected with the common object by virtue of the nature of the object. There must be community of object and the object may exist only up to a particular stage, and not thereafter...."
102. With regard to the appreciation of evidence and motive and with reference to medical evidence, he has placed reliance upon the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in Darbara Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 2013 SCC 840.
103. In order to constitute constructive criminal liability, the following three ingredients are very much essential:
i. There must be an unlawful assembly;
ii. Commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly; iii. Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly; or must be such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
If these three elements are satisfied, then only a conviction under Section 149 I.P.C., may be substantiated, and not otherwise. None of the Sections 147, 148 and 149 applies to a person who is merely present in any unlawful assembly, unless he actively participates in the rioting or does some overt act with the necessary criminal intention or shares the common object of the unlawful assembly.
104. Furthermore, for the better application of Section 149 I.P.C., there need not be a prior meeting of minds. It is enough that each has the same object in view. Probably, the common object of the appellants/accused 1 to 6, might not be of committing the murder of the deceased Nagalingam. If it was so, the first appellant/accused Sekar would not have left the deceased with the single stab injury on the chest. Instead, he would have inflicted more injuries and not only that if each of the appellants/accused has the same object of committing murder of the deceased Nagalingam, they would have also assaulted the deceased with the weapons. But, they did not do so. The act of the appellants/accused would go to show that they might have had the common object of committing rioting and assaulting the witnesses and not beyond that.
105. This would be evident from the conduct of the fifth appellant/accused Pitchai. It is to be remembered that at 02.00 p.m., on the fateful day, soon after his arrival, he had asked P.W.1 Karumbachalam as to whether P.W.8 Pandi had arrived at. Thereafter, he had asked him to wait and that he would come back within a short while. But, he had come back only at 03.45 or 04.00 p.m., From his conduct, an inference could be drawn that they might have had the common object of assaulting the witnesses.
106. On appreciation of the evidences, we find that:
1. Firstly, no evidence is available to attract the offence under Section 506(ii) I.P.C.
2a. Secondly, on the utterance of the deceased Nagalingam i.e. "Junior paternal- uncle! Unite P.W.8 Pandi with his wife to lead a peaceful family life or nullify their marriage", the first appellant/accused got proved and stood up and asked the deceased "You are talking too much. All would be set at right, if you are done to death". While saying so, he had taken out M.O.1 knife from his hip stared at the second appellant/accused Ravi and asked him as "Junior paternal- uncle, catch him". Whileso, the second appellant/accused Ravi had caught hold the deceased Nagalingam from behind. At that time, the first appellant/accused Sekar had stabbed the deceased over his right side of chest with the knife.
2b. On careful analysis of the act of the first appellant/accused, we are of view that he was not having pre-plan in his mind to kill the deceased Nagalingam. Equally, no evidence is also available to show that the first appellant/accused Sekar had shared his criminal intention with the second appellant/accused Ravi. Therefore, we find that the act of the first appellant/accused Sekar would be brought under the amplitude of Exception-4 to Section 300 I.P.C., as the death is caused without pre-meditation.
2c. To constitute a premediated killing it is necessary that the accused should have reflected with a view to determine whether he would kill or not; and that he should have determined to kill as a result of that reflection; that is to say, the killing should be a predetermined killing upon consideration and not a sudden killing under the momentary excitement and impulse of passion upon provocation given at the time or so recently before as not to allow time for reflection. This proposition has been laid down in Kirpal Singh vs. State of Punjab, reported in 52 CrLJ 1517.
2d. From the above context, the act of the first appellant/accused may be taken out from the ambit of Section 302 I.P.C., and brought under the orbit of Section 304(i) I.P.C.
3. Thirdly, since the second appellant/accused Ravi had actively abetted at the time of the offence being committed by the first appellant/accused Ravi, his act could be brought under the purview of Section 304(i) r/w 109 I.P.C., instead of Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C.
4. Fourthly, since there was no iota of evidence available to show that there was a common object among the appellants/accused to commit the murder of the deceased Nagalingam, we find that the question of vicarious liability or constructive liability would not arise and therefore we find that the appellants 3 to 6 are not found guilty under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C.
5. Fifthly, from the testimonies of P.Ws.1 to 5 as well as from the testimonies of P.W.13 and Exs.P11 to P15, we find that the Trial Court has rightly found the appellants 2 to 6 guilty under Section 324 I.P.C., and therefore the above finding of the learned Trial Judge as against the appellants 2 to 6 can be maintained.
107. Keeping in view of the above fact, we find that the appellants 1 to 6 were rightly found guilty under Section 148 I.P.C., by the learned Trial Judge and therefore, this finding can also be maintained, as it is a case of sudden and free fight and therefore each of the appellants involved there in could be held liable for their individual act and not vicariously liable for the act of others.
108. Ultimately, the appellants/accused 1 to 6 are not found guilty under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. The first appellant/accused is not found guilty under Section 302 I.P.C., and therefore he is acquitted of the charges. Similarly, the second appellant/accused is also not found guilty under Section 302 r/w 109 I.P.C., and he is also acquitted of the charges. The appellants/accused 3 to 6 are also not found guilty under Section 302 r/w 149 I.P.C., and they are also acquitted of the above said charges.
109. Having regard to the above facts, we find that the first appellant/accused is guilty under Sections 148 and 304(i) I.P.C. The second appellant/accused is guilty under Sections 148, 324 and 304(i) r/w 109 I.P.C. The appellants/accused 3 to 6 are guilty under Sections 148 and 324 I.P.C.,
110. Originally, when the appeal in Crl.A.(MD) No.402 of 2009 was taken up for hearing on 17.12.2012, the learned senior counsel, who was appearing for the first appellant/accused Sekar, had submitted that the first appellant/accused Sekar was a juvenile as he was aged only 17 years 5 months and 15 days on the date of commission of crime i.e., as on 19.04.2007.
111. The learned counsel had also demonstrated based on the school transfer certificate that his date of birth was 04.11.1989 and therefore he had urged that the benefit of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 be extended to him. This Court has therefore, in it's Order dated 17.12.2012, has directed the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, to hold an enquiry and submit a report to this Court on or before 22.01.2013 with regard to the determination of juvenility of the first appellant/accused Sekar.
112. In pursuant to the direction of this Court, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Dindigul, had conducted a detailed enquiry and submitted a report dated 21.01.2013, before this Court with a finding that the first appellant/accused Sekar was aged about 17 years 5 months and 15 months as on 19.04.2007 i.e.on the date of the commission of the offence.
113. Based on the report submitted by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul, we determine that the first appellant/accused was a juvenile, in conflict with law, at the time of commission of the offence i.e., as on 19.04.2007, in terms of Clause (l) of Section 2 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. His juvenility has not been claimed before the Trial Court during the course of trial and for the first time, it has been claimed before this Court.
114. However, there is no time limitation to claim the juvenility and as contemplated under Section 64 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, it can be claimed at any time before this Court during the pendency of appeal and even after the final disposal of the appeal.
115. What the provisions of Section 64 connote is that a person aged between 16 and 18 years convicted prior to coming into effect of the Act viz., Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, should not be deprived of the beneficial legislation of the 2000 Act. Section 20 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, has given such guideline. Now, if such person is already suffering sentence, his case has to be reviewed. While, such a person may make a formal prayer to avail the benefit of the above said Act and if such steps are not initiated earlier either due to ignorance or due to want of initiative, even then the statue ensures his relief by inserting the 'Proviso" and Explanation to Section 64 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. Not only the Board but the State Government (through nodal department) may review his case and then may pass appropriate order in the interest of such juvenile.
116. In Amit Singh vs. State of Maharashtra and another, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 744, a Division Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court of India has held that the Amendment Act 33 of 2006 provided that the benefit of juvenility shall be extended even to a juvenile who had completed the age of 18 years on 01.04.2001 and the Act shall have retrospective effect. The claim of juvenility can be raised before any court at any stage, even after the final disposal of the case. Sections 20 and 7A set out the procedure which the court is required to adopt, when such claim of juvenility is raised. The petitioner in that case was a juvenile in terms of the 2000 Act because he had not completed 18 years of age and therefore it has been observed that he is entitled to get the benefit of provisions under Section 2(l), 7A, 20 and 64 of the Act.
117. On coming to the instant case on hand, the first appellant/accused Sekar has been determined as a juvenile at the time of commission of the offence i.e., as on 19.04.2007. As per the report of the Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Madurai-16, in No.5032/R2/2013, dated 06.08.2013, the first appellant/accused Sekar has sofar undergone six months and 26 days.
118. It is pertinent to note here that since he is found guilty under Sections 148 and 304(i) I.P.C., he has to be forwarded to the Juvenile Justice Board to pass appropriate orders on the findings of this Court.
119. As envisaged in the Explanation to Section 20 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (as inserted by Act 33/2006), the first appellant/accused Sekar is directed to appear before the Juvenile Justice Board, Dindigul District, on 19.08.2013. It is pertinent to note here that the first appellant/accused is on bail at present.
120. On his appearance, the Juvenile Justice Board, Dindigul District, is directed to pass appropriate orders on the findings of this Court, as envisaged under Section 20 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000, subject to limitations as contemplated under Sections 15(i)(g) 16 of the Act.
121. In sofar as the second appellant/accused Ravi is concerned, the finding of the Trial Court and conviction under Section 148 and 324 I.P.C., is confirmed. The sentence imposed on him is modified to the period sofar undergone. He is found guilty under Section 304(i) r/w 109 I.P.C., and sentenced to suffer six years of rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
122. In sofar as the appellants/accused 3 to 6 are concerned, the finding of the Trial Court and conviction under Sections 148 and 324 I.P.C., is confirmed. The sentence imposed on them is modified to the period sofar undergone and therefore they are set at liberty.
123. Accordingly, we allow these criminal appeals partly. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
krk To
1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge Fast Track Court, Dindigul
2.The Inspector of Police Sanarpatti Police Station Dindigul District
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.