Chinnasamy v. State

For Appellantsin Crl.A.30/2008 : Mr.V.Gopinath, Senior counselfor Mr.K.SelvaranganFor Appellantsin Crl.A.31/2008 : Mr.V.Gopinath, Senior counselfor Mr.John SathyanFor Respondent : Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl.Public Prosecutor.COMMON JUDGMENT (The judgment of the Court was delivered by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J.)This judgment shall govern these two Crl.A.Nos. 30 and 31 of2008. Challenge is made to the judgment of the First AdditionalSessions Division, Krishnagiri in S.C.No.294/2004 whereby all theappellants along with A9 stood charged, tried and found guilty asfollows:First charge: A1, A2, A3 and A9 were found guilty under Section 148 IPC.Second charge: A4 to A8 and A10 to A19 were found guilty undersection 147 IPC.Third charge : A1 to A5, A7, A9 and A12 were found guilty under section 302 IPC.Fourth Charge : A6, A8, A10, A11, A13, A14 to A19 were found guilty under section 302 r/w 149 IPC.Fifth charge : A2 and A9 were found guilty under section 326 IPC.Sixth charge : A1, A3 to A8, A10 to A19 were found guilty undersection 326 r/w 149 IPC.Seventh charge : A7 and A8 were found guilty under section 324 IPC.Eighth charge : A6 and A9 to A19 were found guilty under section 324 /w 149 IPC.Nineth charge : A4 was found guilty under section 325 IPCTenth Charge : A5, A10 and A11 were found guilty under section 323 IPC. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Eleventh charge: A1 to A4, A6 to A9, A12 to A19 were found guilty under section 323 r/w 149 IPC.Twelfth charge : A1 to A4, A6 to A19 were found guilty under section section 325 r/w 149 IPC.Thirteenth charge: A1 was found guilty under section 324 IPC.Fourteenth charge: A2 to A19 were found guilty under section 324 r/w 149 IPC.Fifteenth charge : A5, A10 & A11 were found guilty under section323 IPC.Sixteenth charge : A1 to A4, A6 to A9 and A12 to A19 were found guilty under section 323 r/w 149 IPC.Seventeenth charge : A2 was found guilty under section 324 IPC.Eighteenth charge : A1, A3 to A19 were found guilty under section 324 r/w 149 IPC.Nineteenth charge : A3 & A4 were found guilty under section324 IPCTwentieth charge : A1, A2, A5 to A9 were found guilty under section 324 r/w 149 IPCTwenty first charge : A2, A3, A14, A15 and A18 were found guilty under section 323 r/w 34 IPC. AccusedFindingsAwardA1Guilty u/s 148, 302& 324 IPC 3 years RI with fine Rs.500/- i/d. 6months SI; life imprisonment with fineof Rs.100-/- i/d. to undergo 3 yearsRI and 3 years RI with fine ofRs.500/- i/d. to undergo 6 months SIrespectively https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedFindingsAwardA2Guilty u/s 148, 302,324 (2 counts), 324r/w 149, 323 r/w 34IPC3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.6 months SI; life imprisonment withfine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo 3years RI; 3 years RI for each countwith fine of Rs.500/- i/d. to undergo6 months SI; 3 years RI with fine ofRs.500/- i/d. to undergo 6 months SI;1 year RI with fine of Rs.1000/- i/d.to undergo 3 months SI respectivelyA3Guilty u/s 148, 302,324, 324 r/w 149,325 r/w 149 IPC3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.6 months SI; life imprisonment withfine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo 3years RI; 3 years RI with fine ofRs.500/- i/d. to undergo 6 months SI;3 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.to undergo 6 months SI and 7 years RIwith fine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo1 year SI respectivelyA4 Guilty u/s 147, 302,324, 325, 323 r/w149 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI; life imprisonment withfine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo 3years RI; 3 years RI with fine ofRs.500/- i/d. to undergo 6 months SI;7 years RI with fine of Rs.1000/- i/d.to undergo 1 year SI and 1 year RIwith fine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo3 months SI respectivelyA5Guilty u/s 147, 302and 325 r/w 149 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI; life imprisonment withfine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo 3years RI and 7 years RI with fine ofRs.1000/- i/d. to undergo 1 year SIrespectivelyA6Guilty u/s 147, 325r/w 149, 323 r/w 149IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months; 7 years RI with fine ofRs.1000/- i/d. to undergo 1 yearmonths SI and 1 year RI with fine ofRs.1000/- i/d. to undergo 3 months SIrespectivelyA7Guilty u/s 147, 302& 324 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI; life imprisonment withfine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo 3years RI and 3 years RI with fine ofRs.500/- i/d. to undergo 6 months SIrespectively https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ AccusedFindingsAwardA8Guilty u/s 147 & 324IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI and 3 years RI with fineof Rs.500/- i/d. to undergo 6 monthsSI respectivelyA10Guilty u/s 147 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI.A11Guilty u/s 147 and325 r/w 149 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI and 7 years RI with fineof Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo 1 year SIrespectivelyA12Guilty u/s 147 & 302IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI and life imprisonmentwith fine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo3 years RI respectivelyA13Guilty u/s 147 and302 r/w 149 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI and life imprisonmentwith fine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo3 years RI respectivelyA14Guilty u/s 147 and302 r/w 149 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI and life imprisonmentwith fine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo3 years RI respectivelyA15Guilty u/s 147, 302r/w 149 and 324 r/w34 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI; life imprisonment withfine of Rs.1000/- i/d. to undergo 3years RI and 1 year RI with fine ofRs.1000/- i/d. 3 months SIrespectivelyA16Guilty u/s 147 and,323 r/w 149 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI and 1 year RI with fine ofRs.1000/- i/d. 3 months SIrespectivelyA17Guilty u/s 147 and323 r/w 149 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI and 1 year RI with fine ofRs.1000/- i/d. 3 months SIrespectivelyA18Guilty u/s 147 and323 r/w 149 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI and 1 year RI with fine ofRs.1000/- i/d. 3 months SIrespectivelyA19Guilty u/s 147 and323 r/w 149 IPC2 years RI with fine of Rs.500/- i/d.3 months SI and 1 year RI with fine ofRs.1000/- i/d. 3 months SIrespectively https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Pending trial, A9 died. Hence, the charges levelled against A9 stoodabated.2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of these appealscan be stated as follows:(a) P.W.1 is the daughter-in-law of P.W.3, P.W.2 is the fatherof the deceased Annamalai. P.W.3 is the brother of the deceased.P.W.4 is the grand daughter of P.W.2. P.W.5 is the son of thedeceased. P.W.15 is the wife of the deceased. P.W.14 is the paternaluncle of P.W.4 P.W.13 was also a native of the same place. All theaccused persons and the above witnesses belongs toKuriattukarankottai. Four years prior to the occurrence, a Mariammantemple was construction and consecration also took place. The abovementioned prosecution witnesses and also the accused partycontributed for the same. After Kumbabishegam , the Karagam waskept in the house of P.W.2. A1 objected for the same. There was apanchayat where it was decided that it should be kept in the house ofP.W.2. P.W.2 gave a complaint before Pochampalli Police Station andproceedings under section 107 Cr.P.C. were initiated. The same wasamicably solved before the R.D.O that P.W.1 should be allowed to keepthe karagam in his house. A1 who objected originally for the karagamto be placed in the house of P.W.2 said that he and his familymembers should be allowed to use the pathway as a condition, to whichcourse, the opposite party was not amenable. On 10.9.2003 at3.00 p.m., Vaira/wife of A4 was grazing her cattle in the mangogarden of P.W.2. When P.W.3 questioned the same, he was beaten byVaira , A4 , A7 and A15 and they wanted to go to Police Station. Atthat time, A4 , A18 and A11 went to the Panchayat President house andthey were returning home in a TVS 50. At the same time,the deceased,P.W.2 and P.W.3 who were coming in the opposite direction in anotherTVS 50 dashed against the TVS 50 of the accused party. Thus, thedeceased, P.W.2 and P.W.3 fell down. While they got up, theoccurrence has commenced. A4, A11 and A18 went and brought A1 alongwith the other accused. A1 was armed with a knife. A2 was armed witha stick. A3 was armed with iron rod. At the time of occurrence, A1made a cut on the left knee of the deceased. A3 made a cut on theright ear of the deceased. A10 beat the deceased on the right wristwith a stick, A2 beat him on the right hand. A11 and A5 beat him onthe back. P.W.3 was assaulted by A2, A9, A7 and A8 and A3 attackedthe deceased with knife on the left side of the head. A1 beat thedeceased with stick on the left side of the head. A9 beat on theright fore head with iron rod, A12 beat him on the right side of theear, A13 beat him on the right jaw, A4 attacked him with stone on theleft wrist, A15 beat him with stone and stick on the back side of thehead , A2 beat himon the left shoulder and head with the stone. A7beat with stone. P.W.4 was attacked by A2, A4, A6, A16, A18 and A19.P.W.1 attacked A2 to A4. After the occurrence, all the accused leftthe place of occurrence. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (b) P.W.14 brought a tempo and took the injured to theGovernment Hospital at Dharmapuri. They were all examined by thedoctor. P.W.1 was examined by P.W.8 doctor and the accident registercopy was marked as Ex.P5. P.W.2 was examined by P.W.6 doctor and theaccident register copy was marked as Ex.P3. P.W.3 was examined byP.W.6 doctor and the accident register copy was marked as Ex.P2.P.W.4 was examined by P.W.7 doctor and the accident register copy wasmarked as Ex.P4. Equally, on the very day the accused persons A2, A3,A4, A7, A11, A15, A17, A18 and A19 all took treatment in theGovernment Hospital at Krishnagiri. The accident register copies weremarked as Exs.P.16, 13, 12, 14, 8, 10, 7, 11 & 9 respectively. (c) P.W.30- Sub-Inspector, on information, sent P.W.29-HeadConstable to Dharmapuri Hospital. Thereafter, P.W.30 proceeded toKrishnagiri Hospital and recorded the statement-Ex.P29 ofA11/Murugan. P.W.29 recorded the statement from P.W.1 at 12 noon atDharmapuri Hospital which was marked as Ex.P1 and returned to thePolice Station and handed over the report to P.W.30. P.W.30 who wentover to the Dharmapuri Hospital recorded the statement of A11 and healso brought that statement to the Police Station. Two cases wereregistered, one in Crime No.313/2003 under section 147, 148, 323,324, 341 and 307 I.P.C. on the strength of statement Ex.P39 given byA11. Equally, P.W.30 registered another case on the report given byP.W.1 in Crime No.314/2003 under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 141 and307 IPC. Ex.P1 is the report of P.W.1. Ex.P40 and Ex.P41 are theprinted F.I.R. of Crime No.313 and 314/2004 respectively. (d) P.W.31 Inspector of Police attached to Barur Police Stationtook up investigation of the case in Crime No.313/2003 He went to thescene of occurrence and prepared the observation mahazar Ex.P27 andalso drew a rough sketch Ex.P42 and the photographs were taken. Healso seized the stick, ripper, iron rod , reaper, chappals andmudguard of TVS 50, blood stained earth and sample earth under acover of mahazar in the presence of witnesses. The investigatingofficer went to Dharmapuri hospital and examined P.W.2, 3, 4 and on11.9.2003 he went to the Gokulam Hospital at Salem and found thedeceased in unconscious stage and examined the wife of the deceasedand seized the blood stained pant belonged to the deceased which wasproduced by P.W.15. He got information about the death of thedeceased on 12.9.2003 at 9.00 p.m. He received Ex.P.14 deathintimation. Hence, the case was altered to section 302 I.P.C. at 5'O' clock on 13.9.2003. The amended F.I.R. Ex.P44 was sent to Court.(e) The investigating officer P.W.31 conducted inquest on thedead body of the deceased in the presence of the witnesses andprepared Ex.P45 inquest report and the dead body was subjected topost mortem. P.W.11 doctor attached to Government Hospital, Salemconducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased Annamalai and gaveEx.P17 post mortem certificate wherein he has opined that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ deceased would have died due of the head injuries. P.W.26 maderequisition to the Judicial Magistrate for the material objects to besent for Forensic Department for analysis and the same was orderedand Ex.P35 chemical report and two serologist reports viz.,Ex.P.36and Ex.P37 were received and they were sent to Court.(f) Pending investigation P.W.31 arrested A2 to A4 , A6, A7,A15, A17, A18 and A19 on 13.9.2003 at 9.30 p.m. at Mathur Road.Further, A3 gave the confession statement voluntarily which wasrecorded by the investigating officer in the presence of witenspursuant to which he seized M.O.5 iron rod and knife under Ex.P47mahazar. The admissible part of the confession statement of A3 isEx.P.46. (g) P.W.31 handed over the case records to P.W.32 Inspector ofPolice. Further investigation was taken up by P.W.32. He examinedthe witnesses and recorded their statement. Further, he arrested A9,A12, A13, A14 and A16 on 18.9.2003 and all of them were producedbefore Court. TVS 50 was seized from A5 which was recovered under acover of mahazar. Request was made to the Motor Vehicle InspectorP.W.12, to examine the vehicle who gave a report Ex.P18. Then, theinvestigating officer examined the witnesses with reference to CrimeNo.313 of 2003 and closed the same as a mistake of fact and filed thefinal report in Crime No.314 of 2003 before the Court.(h) The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Necessarycharges were framed. Pending trial, A9 died. In order to substantiatethe charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 32witnesses and relied on 49 exhibits and relied on 27 materialobjects. On completion of the evidence on the side of theprosecution, the accused were questioned under section 313 Cr.P.C.as to the incriminating circumstances found in the prosecutionwitnesses. They denied them as false. No witness were examined onthe side of the defence but a document,Ex.D1 was marked. The Courtheard the arguments advanced on either side and took the view thatthe prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt andrendered the judgment of conviction and sentence as referred toabove. Hence, these appeals at the instance of the appellants.3. Advancing the arguments on behalf of the appellants, Mr.V.Gopinath, the learned Senior counsel would submit that in theinstant case, the prosecution has miserably failed in all aspects tobring home the guilt of the accused. According to the prosecutioncase, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were actually injured. Equally on the side of theaccused, out of 19 accused, 9 accused were injured. Insofar as theprosecution witnesses were concerned, they were all taken toDharmpuri Hospital. On the other hand, all the injured accused weregiven treatment at Government Hospital,Krishnagiri.Both parties havegiven the time of occurrence to their respective doctors as 4.00p.m.. Thus, it is quite clear that the occurrence has taken https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ place at 4.00 p.m. on 10.9.2003. The time of occurrence, though wasactually at 4.00 p.m. they made an attempt to make it as 4.30 p.m inthe F.I.R and also as 5.00 or 5.30 p.m. at the time of recordingevidence. Without any reason, the prosecution witnesses wanted torope in A1. A1 is a School teacher. He has attended the School till4.05 p.m. P.Ws. 22 and P.W.23 who were also teachers of the sameschool where A1 was working have stated that A1 was in the school andthere was also special class conducted which also extends upto5.30 p.m. The attendance register was brought to the Court but thesame was not marked through the prosecution but it was marked by thedefence side which would clearly indicate that A1 could not have beenin the place of occurrence at that time. Therefore, for that purpose,they wanted to shift the time of occurrence.4. The learned counsel would further add that Ex.P1 was thereport given by P.W.1 wherein it is clearly stated the names of A1to A6 and 25 others and nowhere the names of A7 to A19 were mentionedin the report. It is pertinent to point out, according to theprosecution witnesses, there were two incidents that had taken placeprior to the occurrence. A4's wife Varai grazed the cattle in themango garden of P.W.2 and P.W.3 questioned the same. Immediately,Vaira and some of the accused attacked P.W.3. Thus, they wereaggrieved. Equally, when the accused proceeded to the PanchayatPresident's house and were returning back in a TVS 50, at that time ,some of the accused also came in TVS 50 in the opposite direction anddashed against them and hence,there was quarrel between them. Thesetwo incidents were spoken by the prosecution witnesses at the timeof evidence but nowhere it is mentioned in Ex.P1 report. But thesetwo incidents were averred in Ex.P39 complaint given by A11 to P.W.30Sub Inspector of Police, on the strength of which, a case in CrimeNo.313/2008 came to be registered. A reading of Ex.P1 report wouldindicate as if the occurrence has suddenly taken place. But it wasnot so which would clearly indicative of the fact that theprosecution witnesses were the aggressors.5. The learned counsel would further add, in the instant case,A2, A3, A4, A7, A11, A15, A17, A18 and A19 were all injured. Theywere immediately taken to Krighnagiri Government Hospital. They wereall given treatment by the doctors. The accident Register copies werealso marked by the prosecution side. It is true those injuriesnotices were simple injuries but the cut injury were sustained byA11, A15 and A18 as could be seen from the Accident Registrar copiesbut no explanation was tendered by the prosecution witnesses when theeye witnesses P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined. These witnesses haveclearly deposed that no injury was sustained by the accused party.P.W.13 and P.W.14 were also examined as eye witnesses and throughthem, the prosecution made an attempt to give feasible explanationthat the injuries were sustained by the accused side also at the timewhen the prosecution witnesses threw stones in order to protectthemselves. The learned counsel would further add all these eye https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ witnesses have categorically stated that the investigating officerhave not examined them in respect of the injuries sustained by theaccused. It would be quite clear that the investigation was notproperly done in Crime No.313/2003 which was registered on thecomplaint given by A11 under Ex.P.39.6. The learned counsel would further add, the occurrence hastaken place on the evening hours of 10.9.2003. P.W.14 has stated thathis sons were taken by the police on the night of the occurrence.P.W.1 has stated that the police came to the place of occurrence at8.00 p.m. on the same day. P.W.30 has stated that they went to theplace of occurrence at 8.00 a.m. the next morning. However, the casewas registered in Crime No.314/2003 at 2.00 p.m. on 11.9.2003 whichwould clearly indicate that there was inordinate delay and theprosecution never explained how this delay has caused. The learnedcounsel would further add, in the instant case the names of A7 to A19were actually not found in Ex.P.1. At the time of investigation,their names were added since they were actually found with injuries.In order to explain the same, their names were added.7. Added further learned counsel P.W.32 has categoricallyadmitted that A2 to A4, A7, A11, A15, A17 and A19 were injured in thesame transaction. If to be so, proper investigation should have beendone, but not done so. Added further, P.W.13 has categorically statedthat at the time of occurrence there was pelting of stones on bothsides. Thus, it is clear that when such an occurrence has takenplace, the prosecution was unable to explain how the injuries weresustained. The prosecution witnesses are the aggressors and the delaywas not explained. All would go to show that the prosecution has notbrought home the guilty of the accused. The investigation was notproperly done in Crime No.313 of 2003 and benefit of doubt would goto the accused/appellants and they are entitled to be acquitted inthe hands of this Court.8. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor onthe above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made.9. It is not in controversy that the occurrence had taken placein the evening hours on 10.9.2003. The husband of P.W.15 oneAnnamalai was severely injured and he was taken along with theinjured P.Ws. 1 to 4 to Dharmapuri Government Hospital and P.W.1 to 4were given treatment along with the deceased. Despite treatment, thedeceased died. The case was originally registered on the strength ofEx.P.1 complaint given by P.W.1 in Crime No.314/2003 at about 2.00p.m. on 11.9.2003. The case which was originally registered foroffence under section 307 IPC and other provisions. On receipt of theintimation that Annamlai died, the case was altered to section 302I.P.C. P.W.32, who took up further investigation. After conduct ofinquest on the dead body of Annamalai, the dead body was subjected to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ post mortem. P.W.11 doctor conducted post mortem and gave hisopinion in the post mortem certificate Ex.P17 issued by him and alsoas a witness before the Court that Annamalai died out of shock andhaemorrhage due to the injuries sustained by him. The fact thatAnnamalai died out of homicidal violence was not in controversybefore the trial court. Hence, no impediment was felt by the trialCourt in recording so and rightly too.10. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against theappellants, the prosecution examined P.W.s 1 to 4, 13 and 14 as eyewitnesses. Out of whom P.Ws. 1 to 4 were injured witnesses. All thesewitnesses have spoken to the fact that the occurrence has taken placeat about 5.00 to 5.30 p.m. on 10.9.2003. On the strength of Ex.P1report given by P.W.1, a case came to be registered by the respondentpolice in Crime No.314/2003 at 2.00 p.m. on 11.9.2003. It is also anadmitted position that Crime No.313/2003 came to be registered onthe complaint given by A11 to P.W.30 Sub Inspector of Police underEx.P.39. The case was registered under section 307 I.P.C and otherprovisions of the Penal Code. Investigation in both the cases weretaken up by P.W.32 investigating officer. P.Ws. 1 to 4 were treatedin Dharmapuri Government Hospital by the doctors, P.Ws. 6,7 and 8and the Accident Register copies were marked as Exs.P2, P3, P4 andP5. Equally, A2, A3, A4, A7, A11, A15, A17, A18 and A19 were alsotreated by the medical officers at Krishnagiri Government Hospitaland the Accident Register copies in that regard were marked asEx.P16, P13, P12, P14, P8, P10, P7, P11 and P9 respectively. Beforethe medical Officers at Dharmapuri Government Hospital and at theGovernment Hospital Krishnagiri, the accused and the witnesses havestated that the occurrence has taken place at 4.00 p.m. on 10.9.2003.Thus, when the prosecution witnesses were examined by the doctors inGovernment Hospital at Dharmapuri and the accused party when examinedby the doctors at Government Hospital Krishnagiri have given the samestatement, therefore, it can be safely taken that the occurrence hadtaken place at 4.00 p.m. on 10.9.2003. 11. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that thefirst comment made by the learned counsel for the appellant thatthere was a delay in the registration of the case cannot be given anysignificance for the simple reason, in the course of the sametransaction, both P.Ws.1 to 4 and also some of the accused abovementioned were all injured. The statement that the occurrence hastaken place at 4.00 p.m. on 10.9.2003 has got to be taken as truth.Ex.P1 report stating the names of A1 to A6 and 25 others was givenafter 12 hours from the time of occurrence. P.W.1 has stated thenames of A1 to A6 and 25 others. It is pertinent to point out thatall the persons shown as accused belonged to the same place and theywere all familiar to the witnesses. In Ex.P1 only the names of A1 toA6 were mentioned and the name of other persons was not found. Ex.P1should have got its own significance. It is true, there were twoincidents taken place, one, at the margosa garden, when A4's wife https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Vaira was grazing the cattle and the other, when there was dash oftwo TVS-50s', one driven by the accused party and the other byprosecution witnesses. It is true, it was not made mentioned in Ex.P1report but it was found in Ex.P39 report given by A11. However,these two incidents were actually found to be the immediate cause forthe clash between these two groups at the place of occurrence. 12. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for theappellants, all the above mentioned 9 accused were actually injuredin the course of the same transaction and they were treated in theGovernment Hospital, Krishnagiri. The accident registers were alsoplaced by the prosecution. It is the case where all the connecteddocuments including the Accident register copies of the accused wereall placed before the Court. Thus, it can be commented that theprosecution had not made any attempt to suppress any documents. 13. It is true that the injured witnesses P.W.1 to 4 havestated that they did not know whether the accused sustained injury.It is the fact that the accused person sustained injury in the courseof same transaction and the case came to be registered at or aboutthe time the other case came to be registered and investigation wasalso taken up. It is clear that P.Ws. 1 to 4 and the above mentioned9 accused were all injured in the course of the same transaction bypelting of stones against each others. It was actually proved by theevidence of P.Ws.13 and 14. They have categorically deposed thatthere was exchange of pelting of stones. In that incident thedeceased Annamalai was severely injured and the fatal injury on thehead has caused his death that was also proved through the medicalopinion canvassed. 14. As could be seen from the evidence available, the deceasedwas actually attacked by A3 on his head with knife and A9 attackedthe deceased with stone on the head and also chest. Pending trial, A9died and the charges levelled against him stood abated. Apart fromA3, it was A2 who caused simple injuries to the deceased. Exceptthese, according to the medical opinion canvassed, the fatal injurythat was caused to the deceased was by A3. 15. From the perusal of the materials available, the Court hasto agree with the contention putforth by the appellants. A1 could nothave been in the place of occurrence. It is an admitted position thatA1 was actually employed as a teacher. It was the defence plea thathe actually attended the school on that day and the attendanceregister was also brought before court. The same not marked throughthe prosecution but was actually marked through the defence side. Itwould clearly indicate that the school time ends at 4.05 p.m. and theschool is also situated 2 ½ kms from the place of occurrence, apartfrom that, P.Ws. 22 and 23 have categorically spoken to the factthat there was special classes which would go upto 5.30 p.m. Allwould indicate that A1 should have been in the school till 5.30 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ p.m. As could be seen from the available materials, originally, thetime of occurrence was shown as 4.30 p.m. and subsequently, the timeof occurrence was indicated as 5.30 p.m. through the evidence whichwould indicate that in order to rope in A1 in the incident, it hasbeen done so. Taking into consideration all the above aspects, ithas got to be recorded that A1 could not have been presence at theplace of occurrence at all. From the evidence available, it isevident that the occurrence has taken place at 4.00 p.m. on10.9.2003.16. In appraisement of the entire circumstances and also theevidence placed before the Court, it would be quite clear that therewas exchange of pelting of stones at the time of occurrence and theaccused party explained that they were to exercise their privatedefence and in that course A3 attacked the deceased with knife andcaused fatal injury. Since there was actually pelting of stones, itcannot be stated how and by whom the injuries were caused since theprosecution witnesses as well as the accused party were alsoinjured. It was done in exercise of their right of private defence.Thus, it would indicate that they could not have any premeditation orintention. It was a free-fight, however P.W.s 1 to 4 and nine of theaccused were injured. Under such circumstances, the act of A3 who hadattacked the deceased with knife on the head was found to be fatal.The act of A3 was in excess of right of private defence which causedfatal injury and he has got to be found guilty for his individualact. Under such circumstances, the Court feels it fit that A3 alonecould be found guilty under section 304(ii) I.P.C and the award of 5years rigorous imprisonment would meet the ends of justice. Pendingtrial, A9 died and the charges levelled against A9 stood abated.Therefore, insofar as the other accused are concerned, they areacquitted.17. Accordingly, except the 3rd appellant/A3, insofar as theappellants/A1, A2, A4 to A8, A9 to A19 are concerned, the judgment ofconviction and sentence imposed on them by the trial Court is setaside and they are acquitted of the charges levelled against them.The bail bonds if any executed by them shall stand terminated and thefine amount if any paid by them is ordered to be refunded to them.A3 was found guilty under Section 304(ii) IPC only. Hence, thejudgment of conviction and sentence imposed on A3 is modified,instead, he is found guilty under section 304(ii) IPC and awardedfive years rigorous imprisonment. The fine amount imposed on A3under Section 302 IPC shall be treated as fine amount imposed underSection 304(ii) IPC and he is acquitted of all the other chargeslevelled against him. It is reported that except A1, A2 & A3, theother accused are on bail. Therefore, A1 and A2 are directed to bereleased forthwith unless their presence is required in connectionwith any other case. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

18. In the result, Crl.A.No.31/2008 is allowed andCrl.A.No.30/2008 is allowed insofar as A1, A2, A4, A5, A7, A12, A13,A14, and A15 are concerned. Insofar as A3, is concerned,Crl.A.No.30/2008 is dismissed with the above modification inconviction and sentence.Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarvsiTo1. The I Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri 2. -do-Thro' The Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri.3. The Judicial Magistrate,Poachampalli.4. -do- Thro' The Chief Judicial Magistrate,Krishnagiri.5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.6. The Director General of Police, Chennai.7. The Inspector of Police, Pochampalli Police Station, Krishnagiri District.8. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.+ 2 cc to Mr.K.Selvarangan, Advocate,SR.33523Crl.Appeal.Nos.30 & 31 of 2008