AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Sudanthiram, J.—The Appellants in all the appeals are the accused in S.C. No. 20 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sivaganga. By judgment dated 26.2.2003 in S.C. No. 20 of 1998, they stand convicted and sentenced as follows:
Charge
Rank of the accused
Conviction under Section/s
Sentence for each of the accused
1st
A1 to A10
148 IPC
2 years rigorous imprisonment
2nd
A1 to A10
449 IPC
2 years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment
3rd
A3
302 IPC
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment
4th
A1, A2, A4
302 r/w 34 IPC
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment
5th
A5 to A10
302 r/w 149 IPC
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
6th
A4 & A5
307 r/w 34 IPC
Three years'' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/-in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
7th
A1 to A3, A6 to A10
307 r/w 149 IPC
Three years'' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/-in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
8th
A4
324 IPC (2 Counts)
One year rigorous imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs. 2000/-for each count, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
9th
A6
324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
10th
A7
324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
11th
A10, A8 & A9
324 IPC 324 r/w 34 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
12th
A3 A1 & A2
324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
13th
A4 to A9
324 r/w 149 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
14th
A1 to A7
324 r/w 149 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
15th
A7
326 IPC (2 Counts)
Two years rigorous imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs. 2,500/-, for each count, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
Challenging the above conviction and sentence, the accused have preferred these appeals. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(i) The prosecution party and the accused party are all residents of Mulligundu village. The prosecution party belong to Dalit Hindu community and the accused party belong to Dalit Christian community.
(ii) PW.1 and others wanted to construct a Hindu Temple in the area where they were residing. They also gave a requisition to the Sub-Collector seeking permission to build a Hindu Temple. There was some vacant space in front of the house of PW.1. That land belonged to the Government. Oral permission was given and a small Temple was constructed. Near the house of PW.1, the first accused and other accused were residing. Accused Nos. 2, 7 and 8 are brothers. Accused Nos. 1, 6, 4 are the sons of A7. A3, A9 and A10 are sons of A8. All the accused had objected to the construction of Temple that was constructed. Sub-Collector, Tahsildar and the police visited at the place and they permitted PW.1 to set a Temple near the house of PW.1. In order to set up a Temple, they constructed a small stage near the house of PW.1
(iii) Two or three days later, on 2.7.1997, the police from Aravoyal Police Station came to the house of PW.1 and stated that A5 gave a report against PW.1 and others complaining that a sum of Rs. 15,000/-was stolen and hence, they wanted to enquire in the matter. PW.1 informed the police that most of the persons had gone to attend their job and he said that he would appear along with others in the evening at around 4.00 p.m.,. PW.1 did not go for job and he applied for leave. PW.1 discussed with the wife, brother and others in his house about the complaint given against him. At that time, PW.7 came to his house and he wanted a sum of Rs. 100/-from PW.1.
(iv) At about 10.30 a.m., Accused Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 entered into the house of PW.1 through the front door. A3 was holding an axe and the other accused were holding arrival. The other accused i.e. A4, A6 to A10 entered into the house through back entrance and they were also holding arrival in their hands. A3 attempted to attack PW.1 with the axe. PW.1''s mother, father, wife and PW.7, all tried to prevent and at that time, the deceased Selvaraj rushed into the house along with PW.5, PW.6 and PW.8. A3 instigated the other accused to attack. A1 pushed down the deceased Selvaraj. The deceased Selvaraj fell down. A2 sat on his back and instigated the others to attack. A3 attacked the deceased with the axe repeatedly. The cut fell on the head of the deceased. A4 stamped the deceased. PW.9 rushed inside. He was attacked on his head by A7 with an arrival. PW.3 was attacked on her head by A4. A5 caught hold of PW.3. At that time, PW.2 intervened and pulled PW.3, and the attack made by A4 fell on PW.2. A4 also attacked once again on her hip. At that time, A1 also attempted to attack PW.2 but it fell on the head of A4. PW.5 was caught hold by A8 and A9. A10 attacked PW.5 on his head and left leg. At that time, PW.5 was caught hold by A8 and A9. As such, the cut fell on A8. A3 also attacked PW.4 on the right shoulder with an arrival. A3 also attacked PW7 on his right hand. PW.1 was caught hold by A1 and A2. As the axe fell on the ground, A3 got the arrival from A.10 -Amalnath and attacked on PW.1''s head. A4 also attacked PW.8 with the back portion of arrival. A6 attacked PW6 on his head. A7 attacked PW.9 on his head. The accused had run away from the scene of occurrence. While running A7 fell on the ground and he got up and ran away from the scene. The deceased was unconscious and he was taken to the Government Hospital, Devakottai.
(v) PW.10 Doctor, examined the injured Selvaraj (deceased) and she found a lacerated cut injury about 7 cms circular in the back of scalp (left side) and she prepared Wound Certificate Ex.P.2. The opinion of PW.10 Doctor was that the above injury is grievous in nature.
(vi) PW.10 also examined PW.1 and found (a) an incised wound about 7 cms in length 1cm deep, transverse direction in the back of scalp right side, (b) abrasion about 3 cms in shoulder area and she prepared Wound Certificate, Ex.P.3. The opinion of the Doctor was that the above mentioned injuries are of simple in nature.
(vii) PW.3 was also examined by PW.11 Doctor. PW.11 found (i) a cut injury about 4 cms in the left side of forehead, (ii) Oblique cut injury 4 cms in length in the base of right ring finger(iii) Cut injury about 4 cms transverse in direction below right scapula. She prepared Wound Certificate Ex.P.4. The opinion of the Doctor was that the above mentioned injuries are of simple in nature.
(viii) PW.2 was also examined by Doctor PW.11. PW.11 found (i) a cut injury about 3 cms in length vertical in direction in the left eyebrow and (ii) an abrasion 4 cms in length in the left side of back below scapula transverse in direction. She prepared the Wound Certificate Ex.P.5. The opinion of the Doctor was that the above mentioned injuries are of simple in nature.
(ix) PW.11 also examined PW.4 and she found a cut injury transverse in direction 5 cms in length upper side of the right shoulder and an abrasion about 7 cm oblique direction in the upper side of right scapula, and she prepared Would Certificate Ex.P.6. PW.11 opined that the above mentioned injuries are grievous in nature.
(x) PW.11 also examined PW.9 and she found a cut injury about 5 cms vertical in direction in the left side of scalp just above forehead and she prepared Wound Certificate Ex.P.7. She opined that the above mentioned injuries are simple in nature.
(xi) PW.11 also examined PW.6 and she found (a) a cut injury about 8 cms in length vertical in the right forearm 3 cm above right writ and (b) cut injury about 2 cms length vertical in the middle of scalp and she prepared Wound Certificate Ex.P.8. She opined that the above mentioned injuries are simple in nature.
(xii) Then, PW.11 also examined PW.5 and she found (a) a cut injury about 4cms transverse direction in the back of scalp in the middle (b) another cut injury vertical in direction 4 cms , 3 cms above 1st injury (c) a cut injury vertical on the left leg 4 cms below left knee and (d) a cut injury 1 cm on the right thigh 4 cm above right knee. She prepared Wound Certificate Ex.P.9. The opinion of the Doctor is that the above injuries are simple in nature.
(xiii) PW.11 also examined PW.7 and she found a cut injury about 4 cms in direction 5 cms below right elbow and she prepared the Wound Certificate Ex.P.10. She opined that the above injury is of grievous in nature.
(xiv) PW.11 also examined PW.8 and she found an abrasion about 3 cms in the right knee transverse in direction and she prepared the Wound Certificate Ex.P.11. She opined that the above injury is of simple injury.
(xv) The deceased died in the hospital. PW.12 who was the Head Constable of the Aravoyal Police Station during the relevant period of time, on receiving information over phone from the hospital, went to the hospital and received Ex.P1 complaint from PW.1 at about 12.15 p.m., and he came back to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime No. 10/97 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 307 and 302 IPC.,. Ex.P.16 is the FIR.
(xvi) PW.17, Inspector of Police received a copy of the FIR and took up investigation. He held inquest over the body of the deceased from 1.45 to 3.45 p.m., and recorded statements of the witnesses and he prepared an Inquest Report Ex.P.33 and he also gave a requisition for conducting post-mortem.
(xvii) One Doctor Lakshmanan conducted post-mortem examination over the body of the deceased. The said Doctor died in an accident before the commencement of the trial. The said Doctor had issued Post-Mortem Report Ex.P.12 wherein the following injuries are noted:
Injuries:
An incised wound on parietal right 8 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm.
A punctured wound on right orbit outer aspect 1 cm in diameter x 2 cm in depth.
An incised wound on Ear Pinna Right 5 cm x 2 cm x 1cm
Eye lids closed, Tongue inside, Jaws clenched, Teeth 88
88
Internals
Injury No. 1 Fracture of parietal (right) bone present.
Heart Chambers empty. Cut Section of Heart, Liver, Kidney, Brain and Lungs Pale. Stomach contains partly digested rice particles 300 ml present intestine distended with Gas Bladder empty.
Brain lacerated in the parietal area right and clotted blood about 200 ml present inside the dura.
Opinion as to cause of death:
The deceased would appear to have died of Hypovolemia Shock due to Injury No. 1 and would appear to have occurred about 4 hours prior to Post-Mortem.
(xviii) PW.17 Inspector of Police, who took up the investigation went to the scene of occurrence at about 4.30 p.m., and prepared an Observation Mahazar Ex.P19 and Rough Sketch Ex.P34 and he recovered MO.7 wooden log and also MO.6 arrival under Mahazar Ex.P20. On 3.7.1997, he recorded the statement of the witnesses who were in the hospital. At about 4.00 p.m., he arrested A4, A7 and A8 who were taking treatment in the hospital. A7 also gave a complaint Ex.P31, on the basis of which, a case was registered in Crime No. 11/1997 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 IPC and FIR Ex.P.32 was prepared.
(xix) PW.17, on coming to know that some of the accused had surrendered before the Court, applied before the Judicial Magistrate for the custody and on taking them to police custody, he recorded the confession statement of the accused and in pursuance of the confession statement, M Os.5, 6 and 8 were recovered. The case in Crime No. 11/97 was investigated by one Inspector of Police, Adinarayanan. After investigation, it was referred as a mistake of fact. PW.17 after completing the investigation, he laid final report against the accused on various charges.
In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined P Ws.1 to 18, marked Exs.P1 to 46 and produced M Os.1 to 12.
The accused were questioned u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure and they denied their complicity. As far as A2 is concerned, he filed a written statement and let in evidence two witnesses viz., DW.1 and DW.2 and marked Exs.D1 and D2. The Trial Court, after analyzing all the materials, convicted and sentenced the accused as already stated above.
Learned Counsel appearing for the second accused, Mr. A. Padmanabhan, submitted that though a counter case was registered in Crime No. 11/1997 both the complaints were not investigated by one and the same officer. Injuries on the accused were not properly explained by the prosecution. The place of occurrence in this case had been shifted. According to the prosecution, the occurrence took place inside the house of PW.1, which is a very small room measuring 8 X 141/2feet and as such, it is not possible for all the accused to be present inside the house and attack so many persons and the prosecution also failed to establish the place of occurrence by seizing the blood stained earth. Learned Counsel for the Appellant draw our attention to the evidence of Doctor PW.10 who had stated that he was informed by the victim that they were assaulted by nine persons. But it is the definite case of the prosecution that 10 persons had taken part and as such, there is a possibility of implicating the second accused falsely at a belated stage. There was sufficient time for implicating the second accused since FIR had reached the Judicial Magistrate only at 6.15 p.m, that though it is said that FIR was prepared at 1.30 p.m.,. The Magistrate Court was only 6 Kms distance from the Police Station.
The learned Counsel further submitted that, the narration by witnesses that A2 sat on the back of the deceased holding arrival in his hand, has not inflicted any injury but had instigated only others to cut is very artificial. The second accused was a retired official from the IAF and he had sent complaint to the Tahsildar regarding the encroachment of land and the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 and the defiance documents would lead to show that A2 has been deliberately added as an accused.
Learned Counsel, Mr. Rathinam, who is appearing for A3 submitted that the FIR contains minute details which is to be suspected. A8 was inflicted grievous injury, which remains unexplained. Though A3 is said to have attacked the deceased repeatedly, the deceased had suffered only one injury. The weapon said to have been recovered have not been sent for chemical analysis.
Learned Counsel, Mr. Ravi, appearing for A5 submitted that A5 gave Ex.P30 complaint to the police regarding theft against PW.5 and others and therefore, she has been falsely implicated. The overact attributed also was only that she caught hold of PW.3.
Learned Counsel, Mr. S. Senthil Murugan, appearing for A1,A4,A6 and A7 submitted that the injuries on the accused had not been properly explained. One of the accused who sustained injury is said to have fallen in a pit to escape from there. The investigating officer has not noted any pit at the scene of occurrence. The learned Counsel reiterated about the delay in sending the FIR to the Court. It was also pointed out by the learned Counsel that there was no common object for all the accused to attack the deceased who had intervened at the time of occurrence.
Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. M. Daniel Manoharan, submitted that there is no doubt with regard to the place of occurrence even though blood stained earth was not seized by the police. It is only a lapse on the part of the investigating officer. The place of occurrence has been mentioned in Ex.P.1 the complaint given by PW.1 and all the witnesses P Ws.1 to 9 have categorically spoken about the place of occurrence and the overt-act played by each of the accused.
Learned Additional Public Prosecutor further pointed out that the FIR, which was prepared at 1.30 p.m., on 2.7.1997 though reached the Court at 6.15 p.m. as per Ex.P28, history of the case had reached the hospital at 4.00 p.m., in which about 10 accused participating in the occurrence was mentioned. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further added that even in the FIR, the injuries sustained by the accused were mentioned. PW.1 also explained about the injuries sustained by the accused and the complaint given by A7 and the FIR relating to them and final reports have been placed before the Court. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the presence of A.2 was consistently spoken by all the witnesses i.e. P Ws.1 to 9.
We have considered the submissions made by all the parties and perused the records.
As per the evidence let in by the prosecution, the accused party and the victim party belong to different religions and there was a dispute regarding the construction of a Hindu Temple. It is also evident that on the date of occurrence, the police came to the house of PW.1 and informed that a complaint has been given against PW.1 and others by A5 regarding theft of Rs. 15,000/-. This part of evidence let in by the witnesses shows that enmity was prevailing among both the parties.
It is the further evidence of prosecution witnesses that on the date of occurrence, all the accused had entered into the house of PW.1 and they started attacking PW.1. At that time, the deceased and others had entered into the house of PW.1 and then only the deceased and other witnesses were attacked by the accused party. P Ws.1 to 9 spoke about the occurrence and they are all injured witnesses. They all gave evidence about the occurrence with the specific overt-act of each of the accused. It appears from the evidence of PW.10 Doctor before whom the victims had appeared and took treatment that victims had informed the Doctor that they were attacked by definite nine persons. There is a considerable doubt with regard to the participation of one accused in the occurrence. Though the prosecution is very consistent through the evidence of P Ws.1 to 9, it is not possible for us to throw away from consideration about this aspect. Except the presence of A.2, the presence of all the accused, seems to be established by the prosecution. Even in the counter complaint Ex.P.31 given, there is no reference to the second accused. The overt-act attributed to the second accused seems to be very unnatural.
According to the prosecution, A2 sat on the deceased holding arrival but he did not attack. From the evidence of DW.1 and DW.2 and Exs.D1 and D2 and on reading the written statement filed by A2, it raises a doubt with regard to the presence of A2.
Even though presence of A2 is doubtful, the presence of all other accused at the scene of occurrence is to be accepted. The accused entered into the house of PW.1 and attacked PW.1 and others. Even the deceased and others who entered into the house of PW.1 were attacked by the accused. All P Ws.1 to 9 suffered injuries and they have given evidence about the attack by the accused on them.
The contention raised by the defiance counsel that the place of occurrence is doubtful, is only to be rejected. Actually, it is fault on the part of the Investigating Officer for not recovering blood stained earth and sample earth to send them for analysis. Failure on the part of the Investigating Officer cannot be taken advantage by the defiance. On the other hand, it is the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that the occurrence took place only when PW.1 was inside his house and the accused entered into the house and started attacking. In the Observation Mahazar Ex.P.19 and Rough Sketch Ex.P.34, the place where the bloodstain was found is shown. It is not the case of the accused also blood stains were found in any other place.
The other contention of the defiance counsel that injuries on the accused not explained is also to be rejected. In this case, the counter complaint given by A7 was duly received and registered by PW.12 and FIR Ex.P.32 was prepared. The case registered on the basis of the complaint given by A7 was also investigated and final report was filed, which was marked as Ex.P38. There is no suppression of material on the part of the prosecution on the basis of the complaint given by the accused. A7 has also not denied his signature in Ex.P.31. Even in Ex.P.1 complaint given by PW.1 the fact that three of the accused sustained injuries have been mentioned and during the evidence it is also explained as to how the accused have sustained injuries. Though it is suggested by the defiance that the accused were attacked in the open space, evidently, it was not substantiated by any material. The origin of the occurrence is very clear in this case through the evidence let in by the prosecution. It is only the accused party who entered into the house of PW.1 with weapons and started attacking.
While giving benefit of doubt to the second accused, we observe this. The maxim, "falsus in uno, falses in omnibus" is not applicable in India. It may be a rule of caution. It is always open to the Court to make an attempt to separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. It is common phenomena to eye-witnesses to give evidence mixed up with truth and falsity. Though one or more persons had taken part in the occurrence, to implicate some more persons falsely due to motive that prevails is common tendency. Therefore, it is the duty of the Court to differentiate the accused from the available evidence wherever it is feasible to separate the grain from the chaff, truth from falsehood. It has to be appraised as to what extent, the evidence is worthy of acceptance. Of course, the evidence has to be sifted with care. Only when it is not possible to separate the truth from the falsehood as they are inextricably mixed up the whole evidence should be rejected. Unless this process is not carried by counts, the administration of criminal justice would be affected to a large extent by wrong acquittal allowing the real culprits to escape. This principle makes us to give benefit of acquittal only to the 2nd accused while the other co-accused are convicted relying on the same set of evidence.
Though as per the above observation, it is established that except A2, all the other accused have entered into the house of PW.1 and took part in the occurrence, it is now to be decided that the accused 1 to 10 except A2, are liable to what extent and under what provisions.
As far as the first charge is concerned, A1 to 10 were armed with weapons, and it is proved except against A2 and therefore, the conviction u/s 148 IPC against A1, A3 to A10 is confirmed but the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment is modified to one year rigorous imprisonment. As far as the second charge against the accused is concerned except A2, the conviction against A1, A3 to A10 u/s 449 IPC is confirmed and the sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment is modified to one year rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount imposed by the Trial Court is confirmed.
As far as the third charge is concerned, it is against the third accused for the offence u/s 302 IPC. It is established by the prosecution that it was only the third accused who attacked the deceased with the axe and caused fatal injury. The conviction u/s 302 IPC and the sentence awarded by the Trial Court confirmed. With regard to the fourth charge, the conviction and sentence imposed u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC against A1, A2 and A4 are liable to be set aside. It appears from the evidence when the accused entered into the house of the deceased, the deceased was attacked by A3. As already pointed out, the presence of the second accused is doubtful. As far as A1 is concerned, the overt-act attributed to him is that he pushed the deceased down. Insofar as the fourth accused, the overt-act attributed to him is that he had stamped the deceased. Though it is stated that the fourth accused stamped the deceased, there is no corresponding injury. As such, we are not ready to accept the overt-act attributed in respect of the fourth accused. As already stated above, as far as the attack on the deceased is concerned, it is only A3 who is responsible and who had exceeded and acted. The common object of the accused at the time of entry into the house of PW.1 was only to attack PW.1 and not the deceased. The deceased, who had entered into the house of PW.1 and intervened was attacked by A3. In the said circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be given to all the accused except A3 in respect of attack on the deceased Selvaraj. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on A1, A2 and A4 for offence under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC is set aside. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the respective Appellants.
As far as the fifth charge is concerned, it is against A5 to A10 who are convicted and sentenced under Sections 302 r/w 149 IPC. For the reasons already mentioned above, the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused A5 to A10 are also set aside. The fine amount, if paid, shall be refunded to the respective Appellants.
Regarding the sixth charge, A4 and A5 were convicted and sentenced u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC for attacking PW.3. According to Doctor, injuries sustained by PW.3 is only simple injuries. Therefore, the conviction and sentence u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC is set aside and instead, A4 and A5 are convicted and sentenced u/s 324 IPC r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount imposed u/s 307 r/w 34 IPC shall be treated as one imposed u/s 324 r/w 34 IPC.
As far as seventh charge is concerned, A1 to A3 and A6 to A10 as already observed, the conviction and sentence u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC are set aside and instead, A1, A3 and A6 to A10 are convicted under Sections 324 r/w 149 IPC and they are sentenced to one year rigorous imprisonment and the fine amount imposed u/s 307 r/w 149 IPC shall be treated as one imposed u/s 324 r/w 149 IPC.
In respect of charges 8 to 15, the conviction and sentence imposed on the respective accused/Appellants except A2 stands confirmed.
As per this judgment, the present conviction and sentence are as follows:
Charge
Rank of the accused and conviction u/s
Sentence
1st Charge
A1, A3 to A10 -148 IPC
1 year rigorous imprisonment
2nd charge
A1, A3 to A10 -449 IPC
1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months
Charge
Rank of the accused and conviction u/s
Sentence
rigorous imprisonment
3rd charge
A3 302 IPC
Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-in default, six months R.I.
6th charge
A4 and A5 324 r/w 34 IPC
1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/-,in default, six months R.I.
7th charge
A1, A3, A6 to A10 324 r/w 149 IPC
1 year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3000/-, in default, six months R.I.
8th charge
A4 324 IPC (2 Counts)
One year rigorous imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs. 2000/-for each count, in default, six months R.I.
9th charge
A6 324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months R.I.
10th charge
A7 324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months R.I.
11th charge
A10 -324 IPC A8 & A9 � 324 r/w 34 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months R.I.
12th charge
A1 & A3 324 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
13th charge
A4 to A9 324 r/w 149 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months R.I.
14th charge
A1, A3 to A7 -324 r/w 149 IPC
One year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default, six months rigorous imprisonment.
Charge
Rank of the accused and conviction u/s
Sentence
15th charge
A7 - 326 IPC
Two years rigorous imprisonment for each count and fine of Rs. 2,500/-for each count, in default six months imprisonment
Sentences are directed to run concurrently. The period of sentence already undergone shall be given set off. The Trial Court is directed to take steps to secure the presence of the accused/Appellants and commit them to undergo the remaining period of sentence, if any.
In the result, in respect of the second accused, Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 484 of 2003 is allowed. Bail bonds executed by him stand cancelled and fine, if already paid, shall be refunded to him. Insofar as Criminal Appeal (MD) No. 942 of 2003, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed in respect of A3 alone except modification in sentence under 1st and 2nd charges and conviction and sentence under 7th charge, and in respect of other accused, the appeal is partly allowed. Criminal Appeal (MD)Nos.687 and 787 of 2003 are also partly allowed.