Kanagasabai & Ors. v. The State

Sections 326 and 323 IPC. The first appellant (A2) was sentencedto undergo 10 years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine ofRs.500/- along with a default sentence of 3 months simpleimprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 326 and toundergo 3 years rigorous imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs.500/-with a default sentence of 3 months simple imprisonment for theoffence punishable under Section 324 IPC. The second appellant(A3) was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 yearsand pay a fine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of 3 monthssimple imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 326IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay afine of Rs.500/- with a default sentence of 3 months simpleimprisonment for the offence under Section 323.

As against the conviction and sentence, the appellants (A2and A3) have come forward with the present appeal challenging theconviction recorded against them and the sentence imposed on them.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, can be stated asfollows:-The appellants herein (A2 & A3) and the other accused persons(A1, A4 and A5) belong to Adhidravida community. The injuredVelmurugan (P.W.6) and other prosecution witnesses, namely P.W.1to 5 belong to Vanniyar community. All of them were residents of Koorapadi village. The habitants of Vanniyar is on the westernside whereas the Harijan colony is located on the eastern side. Due to previous enmity, the appellants herein (A2 and A3) and theother accused persons who were acquitted by the trial court (A1,A4 & A5), collected themselves in an unlawful assembly on26.03.2000 at about 11.30 a.m near the house of one Dhandapani in Koorapadi village with the common intention of causing death toP.W.6-Velmurugan. P.W.6-Velmurugan who has got lands on theeastern side of the Adhidravida Colony, was proceeding towards hisfield at about 11.30 a.m on 26.03.2000.

P.W.9-Pal Pandi, the then Inspector of Police, Sethithopecircle got the information regarding the registration of the caseat about 12.30 p.m on 26.03.2000. Immediately, he proceededtowards the place of occurrence in Koorapadi and started hisinvestigation after receiving the copy of the FIR at about 1.30p.m from the Sub-Inspector of police, Orathur. He prepared Ex.P3-Observation Mahazar and Ex.P7-Rough sketch in the presence ofP.W.5-Nagaraj and one Arul. M.O.3-blood stained earth, M.O.4-sample earth, M.O.1 series-five granite stones and M.O.2 Series-handle or a spade fitted with an iron ring were recovered by himfrom the scene of occurrence under Ex.P4-Mahazar in the presenceof the above said witnesses. He also recovered the dressmaterials of the injured, namely M.O.5-shirt, M.O.6-Lungie underEx.P2-Form 95 when they were handed over to him by P.W.3-Ramasamyand one Thiruvengadam on 23.05.2000 at about 11.00 a.m. As P.W.9was transferred thereafter, P.W.10-Murugesan, who succeeded P.W.9in office, continued the investigation, recorded the statements ofthe injured witness-P.W.6 and the Medical Officer-P.W.7, collectedthe documents, completed the investigation and submitted a finalreport on 31.05.2000.

The final report submitted by P.W.10 was taken on file bythe learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Chidambaram on his file asPRC No.13/2001. After furnishing copies of the records free ofcost to the accused under Section 207 Cr.P.C. the learned JudicialMagistrate No.2, Chidambaram committed the case for trial to the Principal Sessions Judge, Cuddallore District, Cuddalore. Thelearned Principal Sessions Judge took it on file asS.C.No.270/2001 and made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Chidambaram for disposalaccording to law. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Necessary charges were framed in the trial court, namelythe court of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FastTrack Court), Chidambaram. The accused pleaded not guilty. Asmany as 10 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.10, eightdocuments were marked as Exs.P1 to P8 and six material objectswere marked as M.Os.1 to 6 on the side of the prosecution in orderto substantiate the charges made against the accused persons.

After completion of recording the evidence on the side ofprosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313(1)(b)Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating materials found in the evidenceadduced on the side of the prosecution. They denied them asfalse. No witness was examined and no document was marked on theside of the accused.

The trial court heard the arguments advanced on eitherside and took the view that the prosecution had not proved thecase against three of the accused persons, namely Samithurai (A1),Yasothai (A2) and Sarala (A5) and hence acquitted them of all theoffences for which they faced trial. However, the learned TrialJudge came to the conclusion that the first appellant herein (A2)was guilty of offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 IPCand that the second appellant (A3) was guilty of offencespunishable under Sections 326 and 323 IPC, convicted themrespectively for the above said offences and awarded punishmentsas stated above.

As against the conviction recorded and sentence awardedagainst each one of the appellants (A2 and A3) they have preferredthe present appeal on various grounds set out in the appealpetition.

The point that arises for consideration in this appealis, "whether the judgment of conviction and the order of sentenceof the court below suffers from any defect or infirmity warrantinginterference by this court in this appeal?"

Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants (A2 andA3) Mr.R.Srinivas, learned counsel made the following submissions. The judgment of the court below is against law, weight ofevidence and probabilities of the case. Neither the prosecutingagency nor the witnesses examined on the side of the prosecutioncame out with the full and true facts. There is suppression offacts which alone will entitle the appellants/accused 2 and 3 toget the benefit of doubt. There was a delay in the FIR reachingthe court which will be evident from the fact that the date in thedate seal affixed by the court of the Judicial Magistarte has beencorrected from 28th March 2000 to 27th March 2000, which will makeit obvious that there was an attempt to show that there was eitherno delay at all or the delay, if any would be explainable. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trial court failed to note that the medical evidence wasinconsistent with the ocular evidence of the other prosecutionwitnesses. In the absence of production of any material record toshow that there was fracture, the trial court should not havearrived at a conclusion that P.W.1 sustained fractures. The courtbelow failed to note that the presence of the so-called eyewitnesses was artificial and doubtful and the witnesses examinedon the side of the prosecution regarding the occurrence areinterested witnesses and the said fact was not properlyappreciated by the court below.

The story of the prosecution as to how the complainthappened to be received and the First Information Report happenedto be registered is highly doubtful. It is the evidence ofP.W.8, Sub-Inspector of Police that P.W.1 gave a complaint inwriting. He is not in a position to say whether the complaint waswritten by him or by any other person. P.W.2, who is said to haveaccompanied P.W.1 at the time of lodging of the complaint, has notstated anything about who scribed the complaint (Ex.P1). On theother hand, P.W.1 would say that the complaint was written byanother person to his dictation as he was an illiterate. But hewas not in a position to say who was that scribe. The signatureor other particulars of the scribe are not found in the complaint. There is nothing in Ex.P1 complaint to suggest that it was writtenby somebody else. This aspect will also cause a serious doubt onthe prosecution version regarding when and how the complainthappened to be lodged and the case happened to be registered.

The learned counsel for the appellants contended furtherthat, without examining the Medical officers who allegedly treatedthe injured at Appollo Hospitals, Chennai and without seeing theX-Ray or scan reports, the Medical Officer at Chidambaram, namelyP.W.7 had chosen to given an opinion that there were fractures onthe skull and dislocation of one of the shoulder joints; that thedoctor himself was not disinterested; that the case of theprosecution as if the injured-P.W.6 was sent to the hospital alongwith a police memo for treatment has not been substantiated byproducing the said police memo; that the Accident Register markedas Ex.P5 does not support the said case of the prosecution asthere is nothing in Ex.P5-Accident Register to show that he wasbrought to the hospital with a police memo and that the courtbelow has come to an erroneous conclusion that the appellants wereguilty of offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 and Section 326 and 323 respectively by accepting the evidence ofinterested witnesses without applying the test of careful scrutinybefore acceptance.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for theappellants that when such is the defence plea of the accused, namely the case registered on the complaint of the accused personsfor the destroyal of their houses by setting them on fire and thepresent case registered for the injuries sustained by P.W.6 arecase and counter case regarding one and the same occurrence, investigation in both the cases should have been conducted by oneand the same Investigating officer; that though there is evidenceto the effect that the very same Investigating officer conductedinvestigation in both the cases, the records in the counter case, namely Cr.No.60/2000 have been completely burked by not producingthem in this ase and that the same alone will give rise to areasonable suspicion that the prosecution has not come with thetruth regarding the genesis of the occurrence. The learned counselfor the appellants also contended that the court below havingdisbelieved the prosecution case regarding the charge againstother accused persons, namely A1, A4 and A5 should have alsodisbelieved the other part of the prosecution case, namely thecase against the appellants and acquitted them by giving thebenefit of doubt to them also.

Relying on all the above said grounds raised, the learnedcounsel for the appellants submitted that the conviction recordedand the sentence imposed on the appellants could not stand thescrutiny of this court and that viewed from any angle, the sameshould be set aside holding the appellants entitled to beacquitted of all the charges made against them.

This court also heard the submissions made byMr.R.Muniappa Raj, learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) as ananswer to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for theappellants and paid its anxious considerations to the same. Theentire records including the judgment of the court below, deposition of the witnesses and exhibits were also perused by thiscourt.

Out of the five accused prosecuted before the trialcourt, 3 were acquitted and 2 were convicted. The two accusedpersons (A2 and A3), who were convicted by the court below foroffences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 IPC and Sections326 and 323 IPC respectively, have come forward with the presentappeal challenging the conviction and sentence. Both theappellants, namely A2 and A3, stood charged for offencespunishable under Sections 148, 341, 326, 324 and 307 IPC.However, they were found not guilty of offences punishable under Sections 148, 341 and 307 IPC. The first appellant (A2) wasconvicted for offences punishable under Sections 326 and 324 IPC,whereas the second appellant (A3) was convicted for offencespunishable under Sections 326 and 323 IPC. The case of the Prosecution is that there was previous enmity between the accusedpersons and the injured P.W.6 pursuant to which occurrence P.W.6was attacked by all the accused persons (5 in number) in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ alleged occurrence concerned in this case.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for theappellants that the contradictions and improbabilities found inthe evidence of the prosecution witnesses regarding the nature ofinjuries allegedly sustained by P.W.6 and the manner in which hesustained such injuries were not properly appreciated by the courtbelow and that had it properly appreciated, it would have arrivedat a conclusion that the case of the prosecution as against theappellants (A2 and A3) also regarding the alleged attack made bythem on P.W.6, was not proved beyond reasonable doubt andacquitted the appellants also giving the benefit of doubt. Thecontradictions and improbabilities in this regard pointed out bythe learned counsel for the appellants are taken up for discussionone by one.

P.W.1, on whose complaint the case was registered hasgiven an improved version regarding the overt acts committed bythe appellants herein. According to the complaint given by himmarked as Ex.P1, the first appellant-Kanagasabai(A2) attackedP.W.6 on his head and body using a wooden handle of spade fittedwith an iron ring and the second appellant-Selvanayagam (A3) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ caused injury to P.W.6 by attacking him with a knife on the headand chin. Nowhere in the complaint it was stated that the secondappellant (A3) was also armed with stick and attacked P.W.6 withstick also. A specific averment was made in the complaint thatsoon after the attack made by the appellants herein with thewooden handle of the spade and knife, the injured P.W.6 fell downand thereafter the other accused persons, namely (A1, A4 and A5)attacked him with stones and sticks. There seems to be animprovement made in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses overthe particulars found in the complaint by adding an allegationthat the third accused (second appellant herein), after initiallyattacking the injured P.W.6 with a knife, attacked him with astick also. Thereby the prosecution witnesses made an attempt toaccount for the other injuries as if they were caused by thesecond appellant (A3). This material contradiction was notadverted to and was not appreciated in its proper perspective bythe court below. This court finds substance in the above saidcontention of the learned counsel for the appellants.

There is also substance in the contention of the learnedcounsel for the appellants that the complaint marked as Ex.P1 andthe FIR marked as Ex.P6 are to be viewed with suspicion regardingthe manner in which and the time at which they were brought intoexistence. According to the prosecution case, the complaint waslodged at 12.20 p.m on the date of occurrence, namely 26.03.2000and the complaint and the FIR reached the court of the JudicialMagistrate No.2, Chidambaram within 1½ hours thereafter. Thelearned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) representing therespondent would contend that there was no delay in submission ofthe FIR to the court and that the doubts expressed by the learnedcounsel for the appellants in this regard are based on surmises. Of course it is true that there is an endorsement by the JudicialMagistrate No.2, Chidambaram to the effect that the complaint andFIR were received at 2.10 p.m on 26.03.2000 itself.

Yet another discrepancy found in those documents is worthnoting. The date of seal of the court of Judicial MagistrateNo.2, Chidambaram was affixed in Ex.P1 and P6 on 28.03.2000. Butthe said date has been corrected in both the documents as 27th from28th. According to the prosecution case, P.Ws.1 and 2 while takingthe injured from the place of occurrence to the hospital in a car, on their way to the hospital stopped at Orathur Police station andP.W.1 gave Ex.P1 complaint and only thereafter they proceededtowards the hospital to admit P.W.6 for treatment. If at all theinjured was taken to the police station at the first instance andthen to the hospital after furnishing information to the police, the police would have issued a Memo for treatment. P.Ws.1 and 2do not state that any Medical Memo was issued by the police orthat P.W.6 was taken to the hospital along with any memo issued bythe police. On the other hand, the Medical Officer (P.W.7) wouldstate in his evidence that the injured Velmurugan (P.W.6) came tothe hospital along with a police memo. But the said police memohas not seen the light of the day. It has not been produced onthe side of the prosecution. P.W.5, the Sub-Inspector of police, in his deposition, has not stated that he gave any memo formedical treatment to the injured P.W.6. He has simply stated thatP.W.6-Velmurugan was in the car and he was found unconscious. Itis his simple evidence that he registered the case based on thecomplaint given by P.W.1 in writing and informed the Inspector of Police, Sethithope Circle through wireless equipment and went tothe place of occurrence at 1.30 p.m where he handed over the FIRto the Inspector enabling him to conduct investigation. In Ex.P1also there is nothing to indicate that a memo for treatment wasgiven by the police and the injured P.W.6 was sent to the hospitalalong with such memo. In Ex.P5-Accident Register also there is noreference to any Medical Memo. If at all the injured was broughtto the hospital with such a Medical Memo issued by the police, the Medical Officer would not have omitted to note it in the AccidentRegister. Therefore, it is quite obvious that a new attempt wasmade through the evidence of P.W.7 as if the injured P.W.6 wasbrought to the hospital with a police memo for treatment. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

It should be noticed that the prosecution projected itscase as if the condition of the injured P.W.6 was so serious andhence after initial treatment he was referred to the GovernmentHospital, Cuddalore where from he was taken to a reputed privatehospital, namely Apollo Hospital in Chennai for further treatment. No attempt was made by the police to record the statement of P.W.6while he was in the Cuddalore Government Hospital or while he wasin Apollo Hospital, Chennai. P.W.6 in his evidence would statethat he fell unconscious soon after the occurrence and gainedconsciousness only after two months while he was in the ApolloHospital, Chennai. But no document has been produced on the sideof the prosecution to show that P.W.6 was given treatment in the Apollo Hospital, Chennai. The doctors who gave treatment to P.W.6in Government Hospital, Cuddalore and in Apollo Hospital, Chennaihave not been examined. Not even a certificate received from themhas been produced.

If it is true that the condition of P.W.6 was so seriousand that he gained consciousness only after two months, thedoctors and the police would not have omitted to make arrangementsfor making an attempt to have the dying declaration of P.W.6recorded. No attempt was made to have the dying declaration ofP.W.6 recorded. No request was made to the Magistrate in thisregard. If at all such a request was made, the Magistrate wouldhave visited the hospital, noted the condition of the injured andobtained a certificate from the Medical Officer attending on himto the effect that he was not in a position to give any statement. In the absence of such evidence, this court has to accept thecontention of the learned counsel for the appellants that forobvious reasons either the statement of P.W.6 was not recordedinitially or that the statement so recorded should have beenburked and a new statement should have been substituted. It isquite improbable that the Investigating Officer would have waitedtill the discharge of the injured (P.W.6), that too for about twomonths after the occurrence to examine him and record hisstatement.

Yet another discrepancy in the case of the prosecutionbrought to the notice of this court by the learned counsel for theappellants is worth mentioning. The alleged eye witnesses, namelyP.W.1 and 2 have deposed to the effect that all the accusedpersons, after the occurrence, threw the respective weapons usedby each one of them at the place of occurrence itself and leftthat place. It is the assertion of P.W.1, one of the alleged eyewitnesses, that the accused dropped their weapons in the place ofoccurrence and left the place after the occurrence. P.W.4-Govindaraj, who allegedly came to the place of occurrence, afterthe incident was over, would state that the weapons allegedly usedby the accused persons were found there in the place of occurrencewhen he had gone there. But, it is curious to note that the firstInvestigating Officer, namely P.W.9 was able to recover only five https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ granite stones marked as M.O.1 series and the handle of spademarked as M.O.2 from the scene of occurrence. Neither the knifeallegedly used by the second appellant (A3) nor the sticks used bythe accused persons were recovered from the place of occurrence. When P.W.1 and 4 assert that the weapons had been dropped by theaccused persons in the scene of occurrence and they were foundavailable in the scene of occurrence, why the knife and stickswere not recovered by the police? What happened to them within acouple of hours? — has not been explained by the police.

Under Ex.P4-Mahazar along with M.O.1 and M.O.2 weapons,M.O.3 blood stained earth and M.O.4 sample earth were alsorecovered. But none of them was sent to Forensic Laboratory tofind out whether any traces of blood could be detected and if sowhether it was human blood. Similarly, M.O.5 and 6, the allegedblood stained dress materials of P.W.6 were allegedly recovered byP.W.9 under Ex.P2-Form 95. According to Ex.P2, the said dressmaterials were recovered on 23.05.2000, nearly two months afterthe occurrence. P.W.3-Ramasamy, the father of the injured is saidto have taken those articles to the police station and handed overthe same to the Investigating Officer on 23.05.2000 at 11.00 a.m.But a perusal of the evidence of P.W.3 will show theimprobabilities of the prosecution story in this regard. P.W.3 isa resident of Koorapadi village in which the occurrence tookplace. P.W.3 would state that he got the blood stained cloths ofhis son and kept them in the house of a relative till it washanded over to the police on 23.05.2000. Why should he keep it inthe house of a relative for about two months when he himself got ahouse in Koorapadi – has not been explained. What prompted himnot to produce the same when he was initially examined by thepolice and how he thought it fit to produce them after two months, seems to be a million dollar question. Even according to theevidence of P.W.3, P.W.6 was taking treatment in CuddaloreGovernment Hospital for two days and during the said period of twodays, police came there and examined P.W.3 regarding the injuriessustained by P.W.6. He has also stated that the police noted downthe injuries sustained by P.W.2. If it could be true, the policecould have very well recovered the blood stained clothes of theinjured at that time itself.

If all these aspects are taken into consideration, onecan come to a conclusion that some kind of concoction andembellishment was aimed at by introducing P.W.3 as a witness toshow that the blood stained clothes of P.W.6 were recovered.P.W.3's evidence in this regard is also unbelievable. He is saidto have gone to Chidambaram on the date of occurrence and returnedat about 3.00 or 3.30 p.m after hearing the news that his son hadbeen brutally attacked by the appellants herein. He would statethat when he went to the place of occurrence at about 3.00 or 3.30p.m on the date of occurrence, his son had already been taken tothe hospital and hence he went to the hospital to see his son. But the evidence of police officers are to the effect that the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Investigating Officer went to the place of occurrence at 1.30 p.mand was conducting investigation there. If it is true that hewent to the place of occurrence before going to the hospital, hecould have been examined by the Investigating Officer then andthere itself. On the other hand, according to P.W.9's evidence hewas examined only on 23.05.2000. It gives rise to a reasonablesuspicion that P.W.3 has been introduced as a witness to showrecovery of the blood stained clothes of the injured only as aresult of afterthought and consequential attempt to concoct.

There is a clear admission by the prosecution witnessesthat there was a long-standing enmity between the members of twocommunities Vanniyars and Adhidravidas. The injured and otherprosecution witnesses belong to Vanniyar community, whereas theaccused persons belong to Adhidravida community. There is alsoclear admission that in order to dilute the tension between thetwo communities, the Executive Magistrate, namely the Tahsildar, prior to the occurrence had convened a Peace Committee Meeting butthe members of Vanniyar community boycotted the said PeaceCommittee Meeting and that under such circumstances large scalerioting involving two communities took place on the date ofoccurrence itself, namely 23.03.2000. The prosecution witnesseshave candidly admitted that there was large scale rioting on thedate of occurrence itself. The prosecution witnesses have alsonot denied the fact that in the said rioting houses of the accusedpersons were destroyed by fire. It has also been admitted by theprosecution witnesses that regarding the said mischief by arson, acase was registered on the file of the very same police station inCr.No.60/2000 against the members of the Vanniya communityincluding P.Ws.1 and 2. It is also their clear admission that, after the date of occurrence, the accused persons did not comeback to the village and they were residing in Kattumannarkoil.

The case of the accused, in particular the appellantsherein, is that due to the long-standing scuffle between the twocommunities, the members of Vanniyar community including P.W.1,P.W.2 and P.W.6 were indulged in large scale rioting against themembers of Adhidravida community; that in such an incident thattook place on 26.03.2000 they destroyed the residential houses ofthe accused persons and drove them out of the village; that theaccused persons who were driven out by the members of the Vanniyarcommunity on 26.03.2000 could not return back the village; that acomplaint was lodged against the members of Vanniyar communityincluding P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.6 and that the said persons andother members of the Vanniya community with the help of the policewere able to postpone the registration of the case till a foistedcase was registered against the accused persons to escape from thepunishment for their acts.

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for theappellants, there are reasons to believe that a lot of concoctionsand embellishments have been made suppressing the genesis of theoccurrence with a view to get the appellants and other accusedpersons convicted, so that the accused in the other case, namelyCr.No.60/2000 including P.Ws.1, 2 and 6 would escape from the saidcase. It is manifest from the fact that the Medical Officer-P.W.7has chosen to issue a certificate as if P.W.6 sustained fractureson the cheek, left parietal region, left occipital region, rightparieto occipital region without even going through the X-Rays orscan report or Radiologist's report. All the particulars of thefractures in the skull and cheek are found noted in the AccidentRegister itself. Without taking X-Ray or Scan Report, the MedicalOfficer could not have confirmed the presence of fractures on theskull or jaw or dislocation. P.W.7, in his cross-examinationadmitted that no X-Ray was taken to P.W.6 at Government Hospital, Chidambaram; that the X-Rays were taken for him only at ApolloHospital; that the said X-Rays were not seen by him and that theinjured witness, namely P.W.6 was not produced before him https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ afterwards. The very fact that P.W.7, on clinical examinationitself noted in the Accident Register with assertion that therewere such fractures, coupled with the fact that he has gone to theextent of stating that the injured was brought to the hospitalalong with a Medical Memo issued by the police, whereas there isno such recital in the Accident Register as pointed out supra, would throw a serious doubt regarding the veracity of P.W.7 andgive rise to a reasonable doubt that P.W.7 has gone too much inextending his support to the prosecution case.

If all these aspects are considered in properperspective, one would come to a conclusion that there are so manyimprobabilities in the prosecution version besides samples ofconcoction and embellishment. The trial court did not advert tothe discrepancies, contradictions and improbabilities pointed outsupra. On the other hand, the trial court seems to have beencarried away by the unreliable medical evidence of P.W.7 andEx.P5. A proper appreciation of evidence in this case will resultin arriving at a conclusion that the prosecution has miserablyfailed in establishing charges for offences under Sections 326 IPCand 324 IPC against the first appellant and the charges under Section 326 and 323 IPC against the second appellant also, beyondreasonable doubt; that there are reasonable doubts regarding theprosecution version as to the genesis of the occurrence and otheraspects and that the benefit of such doubt should be given to theappellants and they should be held not guilty of the offences forwhich they were found guilty and convicted by the court below.

Considering all the above aspects, this court, withoutany hesitation, comes to the conclusion that the judgment of thecourt below in holding the first appellant guilty of the offencespunishable under Sections 326 and 324 IPC and the second appellant(A3) guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 326 and 323IPC and convicting them for the said offences is quite defectiveand infirm warranting interference by this court in exercise ofits appellate powers. The said judgment shall not stand thescrutiny of this court.