MEERA MYDEEN ETC. ETC. Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Meera Mydeen Etc. Etc.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The appellants in this appeal, who were Accused Nos. 1, 2 and 4 in the trial court, and were prosecuted along with four other accused (in all 8 accused persons) have been convicted of offences under Sections 302 r/w Sections 149 and 120B, of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo a life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for three years. A-1 to A-3 were also convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for two years for the offences punishable under Section 147 of IPC and to undergo imprisonment for life and also pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each, in default to undergo RI for three years on each count. A-3 was convicted for the offence under Section 341 and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. A-2 to A-4 were also convicted and sentenced to undergo RI for three years for the offences punisbale under Section 148 of the IPC. All the sentences were directed to run consequtively. The conviction recorded by the Sessions Court and the aforesaid sentences thereupon have been upheld by the High Court, resulting into dismissal of the appeals which were filed by these appellants against the judgment of the trial court.
Insofar as Accused Nos. 5 to 8 are concerned, they were acquitted by the trial court. State had challenged their acquittal by filing appeals before the High Court. By common impugned judgment, the High Court has upheld the acquittal of Accused Nos. 5 to 8, resulting into dismissal of appeals of the State. Insofar as State is concerned, it has accepted verdict of the High Court and, therefore, acquittal of Accused Nos. 5 to 8 is not challenged by it. However, insofar as Accused Nos. 1 to 4 are concerned, they are not satisfied with the outcome of the trial and the appeal preferred by them in the High Court and, therefore, have challenged their conviction and sentence in the instant appeals.
(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, was that the accused persons had committed the murder of Manicka Nadar (hereinafter referred to as the 'D-1') and Selvaraj (hereinafter referred to as the 'D-2') in retaliation of the murder of one Md. Kasim, of which deceased Manicka Nadar was a suspect. It was alleged that the deceased Manicka Nadar was the state Executive member of the B.J.P. and the deceased Selvaraj was the District Convener of the B.J.P. Dindigul and they were Hindu activists. It so happened that on October 10, 1994, the Hindu Munnani Leader Rajagopalan was brutally murdered at Madurai and on the same day evening at 6.00 p.m., one Mohammed Kasim, a Muslim Hazarath was brutally murdered by Hindu fanatics near D-1's house at Dindigul. The Investigating Officer in Mohammed Kasim's case had taken D-1 to the police station for enquiry in that case but let him go after finding that he was not involved in that occurrence. But newspaper carried news as if D-1 was arrested in that case.
(3.) In order to take revenge, on January 10, 1997 at about 21.30 hours, A1 to A8 and the deceased accused Rifayudden formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the common object of murdering D-1 and D-2 at Thiruvalluvar Salai, 11th Cross Road Junction, Dindigul. A2 to A8 were armed with lethal weapons, i.e., Vettaruval and Knives and caused the death of Manicka Nadar and Selvaraj.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.