R. Dhanasekaran, S. Sakthivel, M. Rangan @ Palanivel and M. Arumugam vs State

A.C. Arumugaperumal Adityan, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the judgment in S.C. No. 153/2000 on the file of Additional

District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore. A1 to A3 and A7 are the appellants herein.

2.The short facts of the prosecution case sans irregular materials are as follows:

Due to previous enmity, A1 to A3 formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with common intention of committing murder of Narayanaswamy

with deadly weapons like Iron pipes, knife and stones on 9.2.1998 at about 7.30 pm at Keezh Vilakkuthun Village, in the garden of Chenthamarai

Kannan, waylaid P.W.1, P.W.2 and deceased/Narayanaswamy and in furtherance of the common intention, A1 to A3 assaulted Narayanaswamy

with Iron rod causing grievous injuries, A1 has also assaulted Narayanaswamy with Iron rod on the left side of the hip thus causing instantaneous

death to him. In the course of the same transaction, A4 assaulted P.W.2/Dhakshanamoorthy with a knife on the right leg causing injuries and A6

had caused cut injury on the left leg of P.W.2 and A7 with the help of Iron rod had assaulted the left knee of P.W.2 causing simple injury and A13

had assaulted P.W.2 on the right leg with a stone causing simple injury and A3 also assaulted on the left forearm of P.W.1/Sundaramoorthy with

Iron pipe causing simple injury. A1 also assaulted P.W.1 on the left shoulder with Iron pipe causing simple injury, A2 had assaulted P.W.1 with an

iron pipe on the left leg above the foot causing simple injury. A12 had assaulted P.W.1 with a stick on the nose causing simple injury. P.W.1 had

preferred the complaint with P.W.15/The Sub-Inspector of Police, Neyveli Town Police Station, who had registered the case in Cr. No. 49/1998

u/s 307 IPC. But, subsequent to the death of Narayanaswamy in the hospital, the charge was altered into Section 147, 148, 347, 323, 324, 307,

302 r/w 149 IPC.

The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli and on appearance of the accused, the learned Judicial Magistrate had

furnished copies u/s 207 of Cr.P.C to the accused and since the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate has

committed the case to the Court of Sessions u/s 209 of Cr.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges u/s 147, 148, 341 IPC against A1 to

A3, u/s 323 IPC against A3 and A12, u/s 324 against A6, A7 and A1 to A3, u/s 307 IPC against A4, u/s 302 IPC against A1 to A3 and u/s 302

r/w 149 against A4 to A13. When questioned, the accused pleaded not guilty. On the side of the prosecution, P.Ws 1 to 18 were examined,

Ex.Ps.1 to 50 and M.Os 1 to 15 were marked. P.W.1 is an injured witness. He speaks about the motive for the occurrence. According to P.W.1

4 1/2 years prior to the occurrence, one Sivakolunthu died in the village and A1/Dhanasekaran had prevented villagers from attending the

ceremony of the deceased/Sivakolunthu and had also beaten some of the villagers. Due to the said incident two groups were formed in the village

and one faction was headed by A1/Dhanasekaran and another was headed by one Gothandapani. There was attacks and counter attacks between

the two groups in the village and cases and counter cases have also been filed and are pending before the criminal Courts. P.W.1 would further

depose that on 13.1.1998 at about 4.30 am, due to previous enmity, one Dhanasekaran(A1), Rangan @ Palanivel(A3), Sakthivel(A2) and 5 or 6

of their associates including A12 had assaulted P.W.1 with iron rod, knife and stick and that he has preferred a complaint to the police and a

criminal case was lodged and the same is pending in Virudachalam Court. Subsequent to the said occurrence, this occurrence had taken place on

9.2.1998 at about 7.00 pm, when the deceased/Narayanaswamy, P.W.1 and P.W2 were proceeding towards the house of Narayanaswamy, the

accused formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and waylaid them and assaulted them. A1 had assaulted Narayanaswamy on the head with

an iron pipe, A2 has assaulted Narayanaswamy with an iron pipe on the head, A1 again assaulted Narayanaswamy on the hip with the same iron

pipe, A4 had assaulted P.W.2/Dhakshanamoorthy on the right leg with a knife, A6 had assaulted P.W.2 with a knife on the left leg, A3 had

assaulted P.W.1 on the left forearm with an iron rod, A1 had assaulted P.W.1 on the left shoulder, A2 had assaulted P.W.1 with iron pipe above

the left foot. A12 had assaulted P.W.1 with bamboo stick, A7 had assaulted P.W.2 with an iron pipe on the left knee. A13 had assaulted P.W.2

on the left leg with a stone. A8, A9 and A10 have criminally intimidated P.W.2 and other witnesses by holding iron pipe and after committing the

crime, accused ran away. P.W.1 would further depose that in the attack A3 had also sustained injuries and that the injured were taken to

Government Hospital at Banrotti and that P.W.1 and P.W.2 prepared a complaint and lodged the same with Neyveli Town Police on the same

day at about 9.00 p.m. and that Ex.P.1 is the complaint. Since Narayanaswamy''s condition was very serious, he was refered to Government

Hospital at Cuddalore for further treatment, but the said Narayanaswamy without responding to the treatment died on 10.02.1998 at about 4.30

am.

The evidence of P.W.1 was corroborated by P.W.2 Dhakshnamoorty, who is also an injured witness in the occurrence. He would corroborate

P.W.1 to the effect that at the time of occurrence A3 had assaulted P.W.1 with an iron pipe and also assaulted Narayanaswamy with the same

iron pipe on the head alongwith the co-accused. According to P.W.2, A7 had assaulted him with an iron pipe on the left leg. He has accompanied

P.W1 to the police station to lodge the complaint/Ex.P.1, P.W.3 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and 2 to the effect that at the time

of occurrence A1 had assaulted Narayanasamy on the head with an iron pipe alongwith A2 and A3, and A1 has also assaulted Narayanasamy on

the hip with the same iron pipe. He has also deposed to the fact that A4 had assaulted P.W.2 with a knife on the right leg and A6 had assaulted

P.W2 on the left leg with a knife and A3 had assaulted P.W.1 on the left forearm with an iron pipe, A1 has assaulted P.W.1 on the right shoulder

with an iron pipe, A12 had assaulted P.W.1 with an iron pipe on the nose, A2 had assaulted P.W.1 on the left foot, A7 had assaulted P.W.2 on

the right knee with an iron pipe, A13 had assaulted P.W.2 with a stone, A8, A9 and A10 have criminally intimidated P.W.1 to 3, and that on the

next morning Narayanaswamy died at Government Hospital, Cuddalore. P.W.4 who is the wife of the deceased/Narayanaswamy, has stated that

on 9.2.1998 at about 7.30 p.m, after hearing the occurrence she went and saw her husband lying down at the place of occurrence in an

unconscious condition and blood was oozing through ear and nose of Narayanaswamy and that P.W.1 and 2 also were seen at the place of

occurrence with injuries and that she had seen A1 to A3 at the place of occurrence with iron pipes and that A5 was holding a pipe, A4 and A6

were holding knives, A12 was holding a stick, A7, A8, A9, A10 & A11 were holding iron pipes and on seeing her, the accused left the scene of

occurrence and that her husband was taken to Government Hospital, Banrotti and then to Government Hospitat at Cuddalore and she saw her

husband''s corpse on the next day at 10.30 a.m in the Cuddalore hospital.

P.W.1 had preferred a complaint on 9.2.1998 at about 9.00 p.m to P.W.15, who had registered the same under Cr. No. 49/1998 u/s 147,

148, 341, 323, 324 and 307 IPC, Ex.P.29 is the First Information Report, and the same was altered into Section 302 IPC after the death of

Narayanaswamy on the next day morning at 3.00 am, Ex.P.30 is the express First Information Report.

On the basis of the complaint, P.W.17/Inspector of Police had visited the place of occurrence and prepared observation mahazer in the

presences of P.W.6, in whose presence, he had prepared Ex.P.3/mahazer. P.W.7 is the son of the deceased/Narayanaswamy. He speaks about

the two factions, one headed by Danasekaran and another headed by Kothandapani in the village and that he saw his father lying down

unconsciously with injuries on 09.02.1998 at about 7.30 p.m. at the place of occurrence alongwith Sundaramoorthy and Dhakshanamoorthy, and

that he took his father to the Government Hospital at Banrotti alongwith Govindarajan from where his father was referred to Government Hospital

at Cuddalore for further treatment, and that his father died at Government Hospital at Cuddalore at 12.10 p.m. mid night. P.W.8 is the brother of

Narayanaswamy, who would depose that there are two factions in the village and he is the leader of one of the factions, and that both the groups

used to indulge in petty quarrels very often, and that he was not in the village on the date of occurrence and returned only at night at 10.00 p.m. on

9.2.1998, and that after hearing the sad demise of his brother at Government Hospital at Cuddalore on 10.2.1993 at about 4.30 am, he went there

and brought his brother''s corpse to the village. P.W.9 would depose that the Inspector of Police had recorded the confession statement of

A6/Sridhar, in his presences and in pursuance of the confession statement, he took the Inspector of Police to his house and produced a knife and

an iron pipe, which were seized by the Inspector of Police under Ex.P.6 and 7 respectively, P.W.10 is the Doctor, who had conducted

postmortem on the corpse of the deceased/Narayanaswamy and issued Ex.P.8/Postmortem report. P.W.11 would speak about the confession

statement recorded by the Inspector of Police for A4, A8 and A2, and also speaks about the recovery of iron pipes under Ex.Ps.10 to 12. He

was also treated as a hostile witness. P.W.12 speaks about the confession statement of A7. P.W.13 would speak about the confession statement

of A1, A5 and A11.

On the basis of the above said evidence, the learned Judicial Magistrate has framed the questions u/s 313 Cr.C.P regarding the incriminating

circumstances. When questioned, the accused totally denied the charges. The learned Sessions Judge after going through the evidence of both oral

and documentary, has convicted A1 to A3 under Sections 148, 341, 324 & 302 IPC and A7 for the offence under Sections 148, 341 and 324

IPC and A12 & A13 for offences u/s 147, 341, 323 IPC and convicted and sentenced under various provisions of law under IPC and other

accused have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge.

Aggrieved by the findings of the learned Sessions Judge, A1 to A3 and A7 have preferred this appeal.

Now the point for determination is whether the guilt against A1 to A3 u/s 302 IPC and against A7 u/s 148, 341 and 324 IPC have been proved

beyond any reasonable doubt? Or the Conviction and Sentence against them are liable to the set aside for the reason stated in the grounds of

appeal?

The Point: The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants A1 to A3 and A7 would contend that even as per the evidence of

P.W.18/Inspector of Police, the Punchayat Union Councilor of Veelakkuthun Village had preferred a complaint in respect of the same occurrence

on 9.2.1998 itself at 9.00 p.m, and that Ex.D.1 is the explanation called for from the Court through the Superintendent of Police to the Inspector of

Police/P.W.18 relating to the complaint preferred by Councilor/Govindarajan. The reply by the Inspector of Police to the Superintendent of Police,

Cuddalore in C. No. G4 5933/98 reveals that the complaint preferred by Councilor/Govindarajan alongwith one Shanmugam has been registered

in Neyveli Nagar Police Station Cr. No. 49/1998 u/s 147, 148, 341, 324, 323, 336, 506(ii) & 307 IPC and subsequently altered to 302 IPC.

This is seen from Ex.D.1 itself. The councilor/Govindarajan had appeared before the police on 9.2.1998 at 7.30 hrs and informed about the

occurrence and sought for appropriate action. On that basis P.W.18/Inspector of Police went to the Government Hospital, Banrotti and after

obtaining a regular complaint from one of the injured, namely P.W.1, registered the FIR/Ex.P.!. P.W.1 has stated in his evidence that occurrence

had taken place on 9.2.1998 at about 7.00 or 7.30 pm, and that he had preferred a complaint/Ex.P.1 with the police at about 9.00 pm. A perusal

of Ex.P.1/Complaint will go to show that the complaint preferred by P.W.! was registered by P.W.15/Sub Inspector of Police u/s 147, 148, 343,

323, 324 IPC. A copy of FIR is Ex.P.29. Even in Ex.P.29/FIR, P.W.1 Sundaramoorthy has clearly stated that the occurrence is known to

Kupuswamy, Govindarajan and Tamil Arasi. The Councilor/Govindarajan also informed the police about the occurrence and the injured also

preferred a complaint/Ex.P.1. On the basis of the complaint preferred by P.W.1, the case has been registered in Cr.No,49/1998. So, the

contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants that there were two complaints preferred in this case cannot hold any water.

The next point to be decided in this appeal is whether the charge against A1 to A3 u/s 302 IPC has been proved by sufficient oral and

documentary evidences. The charges against A1 to A3 u/s 302 IPC is that they have assaulted the deceased/Narayanaswamy with iron pipes

causing grievous injuries to him which resulted in his death. A1, according to prosecution, has also assaulted Narayanaswamy with the same iron

pipe on the left side of the hip causing injury. P.W.1 and 2 are ocular witnesses and they are also injured witnesses. According to P.W.1 due to

previous enmity, on 9.2.1998 while he, P.W.2 and deceased/Narayanaswamy were proceeding towards Narayanaswamy''s house at about 7,00

pm or 7.30 pm, A1 had assaulted Narayanaswamy with an iron pipe on the head and A2 had assaulted Narayanaswamy with an iron pipe on the

head and A3 has assaulted Narayanaswamy with an iron pipe on the head and A1 also assaulted Narayanswamy on the hip with the same iron

pipe. He would also depose to the effect that he was also assaulted by A3 with an iron pipe on the left forearm and A1 has assaulted him(P.W.1)

with an iron pipe on the left shoulder and A2 had assaulted him(P.W.1) above the left foot. The evidence of P.W.1 has been corroborated by the

evidence of P.W.2. P.W.2 has deposed to the effect that on 9.2.1998 at about 7.30 pm while he, P.W.1 and Narayanaswamy were proceeding

towards Narayanaswamy''s house A1 to A3, due to previous enmity, have assaulted Narayanaswamy on the head with iron pipes and A1 had

assaulted Narayanaswamy on the right side of the hip and that A4 had inflicted injury with a knife on his left leg and A3 had assaulted P.W1 with

an iron pipe on the left hand and A1 had assaulted P.W.1 on the left shoulder with iron pipe, A2 had assaulted P.W.1 with an iron pipe on the left

leg and A7 had assaulted him(P.W.2) with an iron pipe on the left leg causing injury and A13 had assaulted him(P.W.2) with stone on the right leg.

P.W.3 has also corroborated the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, and would depose A1 to A3 have assaulted Narayanaswamy on the head with

iron pipe causing grievous injuries and A1 has also assaulted on the hip of Narayanaswamy with the same iron pipe. He also speaks about the

motive for the occurrence. He would depose that his father was Sivakolunthu and on his death A1/Danasekaran had prevented the villagers from

attending the death ceremony of Sivakolunthu and that he had preferred a complaint with Neyveli Police Station against A1 and that the

deceased/Narayanaswamy and his associates participated in the death ceremony of his father/Sivakolunthu and from that day onwards there was

two groups in the village, one is being headed by A1 and another one is headed by teacher Dhandabani. He would also admit that A1 and one

Parasuraman had preferred a complaint against him and a criminal case in S.C. No. 232/2001 is pending against him, wherein A1 herein is cited as

a prosecution witness and that S.C. No. 232/2001 is still pending. P.W.4 has deposed to the effect that she had seen A1 to A3 with iron pipe at

the place of occurrence and her husband was lying down with bleeding injuries in an unconscious state at the place of occurrence at 7,30.pm on

9.2.1998. The evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.3 have been corroborated by the evidence of Doctor/P.W.10, who had conducted autopsy on the

corpse of Narayanaswamy. Ex.P.8 is the postmortem report. Injuries 1 to 3 shown under Ex.P.8/Postmortem report is inrespect of lacerated

injuries and contusion on the head of Narayanaswamy. The Doctor/P.W.10 would depose that on exploring the injuries on the head of

Narayanaswamy, she could see fracture in the skull bone measuring 13 cm from the left side of the skull to the right side and there was blood clot

in the brain. The Doctor/P.W.10 has opined that the above said injuries to the head would have been caused with the help of iron pipe and that the

internal injuries corresponds to injuries1 to 3 are sufficient to cause death. She has also stated that the fifth injury on the right side of the hip and

thigh would have also been caused with the help of an iron rod. So, the injuries sustained by the deceased/Narayanaswamy on the head region as

per Ex.P.8/Postmortem report corresponds to the assault alleged to have been made by A1 to A3 with iron pipe on the head of Narayanaswamy

as spoken to by P.W.1 to 3.

The learned senior counsel appearing for the accused would contend that A3 had sustained injuries and that was not explained by the

prosecution. P.W.1 to 3 have stated in their evidence that while accused attacked Narayanaswamy and other P.Ws, in the melee, A3 had also

sustained injuries. P.W.18/Inspector of Police in his evidence in the cross-examination has also admitted that A3 had sustained injuries in the

occurrence, but there was no complaint preferred by A3. If A3 would have received injury in the occurrence at the hands of P.Ws, then he would

have preferred a complaint to the police or atleast would have preferred a private complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate. The fact that

A3 has not preferred any police complaint against the P.Ws itself will go to show that the injuries sustained by A3 was not due to any assault by

P.Ws. It is seen from the evidence of P.W.17 that A2 was arrested on 11.2.1998 at 10.45 am and that he has given confession statement/Ex.P.9

and in pursuance of the confession statement, he took A2 to the place of occurrence and A2 had produced the iron pipe used by him in the

occurrence from the hidden place. P.W.17 has also arrested A3 at 6.30 pm on 10.2.1998 and he has also recorded his confession

statement/Ex.p.45 and on the basis of the confession statement, he has recovered iron pipe under Ex.p.46/Mahazer. P.W.18/Inspector of police in

his deposition has stated that A1 alongwith some of the other accused had surrendered before the Judicial Magistrate, Ulunthoorpet and that he

filed necessary application for their police custody and he took A1 under police custody on 6,3.1998 and recorded his voluntary confession

statement in the presence of witnesses Ramakrishnan and Rajangam, and in pursuance of the confession statement/Ex.P.23, he had recovered

M.O.13 iron pipe under Ex.P.26/Mahazer. P.W.13/Ramakrishnan is a witness to Ex.P.26. P.W.13 had corroborated the evidence of P.W.18 in

respect the recovery of iron pipe under Ex.P.26/Mahazer. So the guilt u/s 302 IPC has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt against A1 to

A3.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that the accused have resisted P.Ws, Narayanaswamy and others for self

defence to protect the properties. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel for the appellant relied on the case reported in Subramani and

Others Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, . The facts of the said case is that the appellant in that case was in possession of the plot in question for over 50

years and on the previous evening to the occurrence date the prosecution party have attempted to dispossess the appellants, but on the protest of

the appellants have given up their plan and retreated. On the following morning, they again attempted to take possession of the land by ploughing

the same and exercising right of ownership. At that time appellants appeared on the scene and protested, which ultimately resulted in an assault on

them by the members of the prosecution party. It was contended in that case that the prosecution party were the aggressors and they sought to

dispossess the appellants from the lands of which they were in possession as cultivating tenants for over 50 years. On the previous evening, the

prosecution party had attempted to dispossess them and on their protest they went away. On the day of the incident, they again attempted to

dispossess the appellants by ploughing the land in question upon which the appellants protested. This provoked the prosecution party to assault the

appellants to whom injuries were caused on vital parts of their body. Apprehending danger to their life the appellants defended themselves with

whatever they had in their hands in exercise of their right to private defence of person and property. There was no question of criminal trespass,

since the land in question was in possession of the appellants and in fact it was the prosecution party which had trespassed upon their land. So

under such circumstances, it was held by the Honourable Apex Court that the accused attacked the deceased only in private defense and the

appellants were acquitted u/s 96 IPC.

The above said dictum will not be applicable to the present facts of the case because it is not the case of the appellants/A1 to A3 that they

attacked the deceased Narayanaswamy and P.Ws for self defense. Even during 313 question self defense was not pleaded by A1 to A3. On the

other hand, neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of the accused to prove the theory of self defense. The learned Counsel

for the appellants contended that the injury on A3 was not explained by the prosecution which is fatal.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) relied on the case reported in Takhaji Hiraji Vs. Thakore Kubersing Chamansing and Others,

and contended that the non explanation of injuries sustained by the accused person is not a ground to discord the entire prosecution case and that it

is seen from the evidence of P.W.1 to 3 that A3 had sustained injury only by other accused, while assaulting the prosecution witnesses. A3 has not

even preferred any complaint to the police or private complaint to the Magistrate alleging that the prosecution witnesses have assaulted him. If

material witness, which would unfold the genesis of the incident or an essential part of the prosecution case, not convincingly brought to fore

otherwise, or where there is a gap or infirmity in the prosecution case which could have been supplied or made good by examining a witness which

though available is not examined, the prosecution case can be termed as suffering from a deficiency and withholding of such a material witness

would oblige the Court to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution by holding that if the witness would have been examined it would not

have supported the prosecution case. In this case absolutely there is no evidence let in on the side of the accused to show that prosecution

witnesses have assaulted A3 at the time of the occurrence. So, the contentions of the learned senior counsel for the accused 1 to 3 that the

prosecution has failed to explain the injuries sustained by A3 will cut at the root of the case of the prosecution will hold no water.

The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) in support of his contention also relied on the case reported in 1997 SCC (Cri) 226 (Bharty v.

State of Haryana) wherein also it has been reiterated as follows:

Coming to the question as to non-explanation of the injuries on the accused persons it appears that they were examined by Dr. Kalra on

22.7.1983 at 7.30 am though the occurrence took place on 17.7.1983 at 8.30 pm. Accused Karta Ram had an injury to the extent of 1 cm x 4

cm on the left side of the face and a bruise with slight abrasion on the left thumb and another abrasion on the back of the left elbow. Accused

Mange had a bruise of 6 cm x 1 cm on the right shoulder and another bruise measuring 5 cm x 1.2 cm on the right shoulder, accused Bhartu had

an abrasion of 1 cm x 1 cm on the left knee joint and another bruise of 4 cm x 2 cm on the left arm and a swelling on the dorsum of the right hand.

These injuries are in fact such minor and small injuries that the prosecution is not obliged to explain the same and non-explanation by the

prosecution cannot be held to be fatal to the prosecution case.

So, we hold that the guilt u/s 302 IPC against A1 toA3 has been proved beyond any reasonable doubt as rightly held by the learned Sessions

Judge and there is no interference is needed in the finding of the learned Sessions Judge.

The next point to be decided in this case is whether A7 is guilty under Sections 148, 341, 324 IPC. The accused, namely A4, A6, A8 to A10,

A11, who have been charged alongwith A7 for the offence u/s 148, 341, 324 IPC have been acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. The

charges against A7 are that he had assaulted P.W.2 with a knife on the left leg causing simple injury and was found in the unlawful assembly with

deadly weapon like knife and has wrongfully restrained P.Ws at the time of the occurrence. P.W.2 has not stated in his evidence that A7 had

wrongfully restrained him, P.W.1 and Narayanaswamy at the time of occurrence. So, the charge u/s 341 against A7 goes. The allegation of P.W.2

is that A7 had assaulted him(P.W.2) with an iron pipe on his left leg. A perusal of Ex.p.P.32/Wound Certificate relating to P.W.2 will go to show

that he was assaulted by iron pipe and stones at the time of the occurrence. As per Ex.P.32, P.W.2 had sustained two abresions only on the left

knee joint and another on the right leg. P.W.2 has not stated in his evidence that A7 had assaulted on his left knee. In the cross-examination P.W.2

would depose that Doctor has seen four injuries on his leg and that on the left leg he has sustained a cut injury by knife and also a injury due to the

assault by pipe. But, Ex.P.32/Wound Certificate shows that he had sustained only abresion on the left knee and right leg. The doctor, who had

issued Ex.P.32 was examined as P.W.16. The Doctor/P.W.16 has stated that as per Ex.P.32, he has not given treatment to P.W.2 on 9.2.1998 at

1.35 pm but only at 10.35 am on 10.2.1998. He has stated in his cross-examination that the injuries, P.W.2 had sustained, would have been

caused due to fall on a rough surface. Further P.W.16 has stated that P.W.2 at the time of his examination had stated that he was attacked by four

persons with iron pipe and stones. P.W.2 has stated that A7 had assaulted with iron pipe on the left knee. Under such circumstances, the injuries

sustained by P.W.2 do not correspond with the medical evidence in the manner alleged by P.W.2. So, the charge u/s 324 IPC has not been made

out against A7. There is also no evidences to show that A7 had wrongfully restrained P.Ws. So, offence under Sections 341 IPC against A7 has

not been proved. No weapon was recovered from A7 by P.W.17 or P.W.18. P.W.17 has recovered iron pipe from Arumungam S/o

Kannusamy, who is A8 and not from A7/Arumugam S/o.Murugesan. So, charge against A7 u/s 148 IPC has not been made. So we hold that the

charges u/s 148, 324, 341 IPC against A7 are not made out in this case.

Hence, we hold on the point that the charges u/s 302 has been proved against A1 to A3 and charge under Sections 148, 342, 342 IPC is not

proved against A7. Point is answered accordingly.

In the result, the appeal in respect of A1 to A3 are dismissed and conviction and sentence u/s 302 IPC against A1 to A3 passed by the

learned Sessions Judge is confirmed and the appeal in respect of A7 is allowed and conviction and sentence passed by the learned Sessions Judge

against A7 under Sections 148, 324, 341 IPC are set aside and A7 is acquitted. The Bail bond against A7 stands cancelled and the fine amount

paid by A7 is directed to be returned to A7. A1 to A3 are to be secured by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore and send to prison to undergo

the remaining period of sentence awarded by the learned Sessions Judge in S.C.153/2000.