G.M. AKBAR ALI,J. - (1.) THE conviction and sentence passed by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry in S.C.No.34 of 2009 dated 30.11.2010. against the following accused are detailed hereunder: S.No Offence Against accused Conviction and Sentence 1 148 IPC A.1 to A.17 3 Yrs R.I and fine of Rs.1000/-each, i/d 6 months S.I 2 452 r/w 149 IPC A.1 to A.17 7 Yrs R.I and fine of Rs.1000/-each, i/d 6 months S.I 3 324 r/w 149 IPC A.3, A.8 to A.11, A.15 and A.16 2 Yrs R.I and fine of Rs.1000/-each i/d 6 months S.I 4 326 r/w 149 IPC A.1 to A.5, A.9, A.14, A.16 and A.17 7 yrs R.I and fine of Rs.1000/-each, i/d 6 months S.I 5 302 r/w 34 IPC A.1, A.2, A.10, A.11 Life and fine of Rs.1000/-each, i/d 6 months S.I
(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is as follows: (a) THE prosecution party and the appellants belong to Pillaiyar kuppam village of Puducherry. Both belong to two rival political groups. (b) According to the prosecution, on 27.10.2008, at about 6.00 p.m., when P.W.1 was proceeding towards his home at Pilliyar kuppam village, A.9, A.10, A.11 and A.15, who belong to the opposite group, waylaid and beat him near Angalamman temple with iron pipe and stick. He sustained injuries on his lips. P.W.1 went to his house and informed his father Subramaniam (deceased). Both, PW.1 and the deceased went to the house of the 1st appellant to complain about the incident. Since the 1st appellant was not in his house, they returned back. On the way, they met P.W.2, 3 and 5 who were friends of P.W.1 and they enquired about the attack. THEy were standing in front of the house of the deceased and were discussing. (c) P.W.4 the daughter-in-law of the deceased was in the house. At that time, the appellants A.1 to A.17 came as a mob carrying iron pipe, wooden logs, knife and sticks and thereby, formed an unlawful assembly with deadly weapons. (d) On seeing the mob, P.W.1,2,3 and 5 ran to a safe place and hide themselves behind a bamboo screen of the house of P.W.1's aunt. Appellants 1,2,10 and 11 went to the house of the deceased and enquired him about P.W.1. Stating, if the father is beaten the son will come, they started beating the deceased on his back and chest with iron pipe and stick. P.W.4 intervened and questioned them. 1st appellant beat P.W.4 with iron pipe. THE appellants 1 and 2 instigated the other appellants to attack the prosecuting party. (d) On such instructions, the appellants attacked the witnesses, some of whom sustained fractures and grievous injuries and houses were damaged and articles destroyed. (e) On receiving such information about the riot over phone, P.W.45, the Sub Inspector of Police, Kirumambakkam Police station, went to the scene of occurrence at 8.40 p.m with the police party and took control of the situation, forwarded the injured to the hospital for treatment and arranged bandobust in the locality. (f) P.W.1 to 5 and other injured witnesses including the fatally injured Subramanian were admitted in a private hospital and the said Subramanian was declared dead. (g) On 28.10.2008 at 1.00 a.m, P.W.1 went to the Kimambakkam police station and gave a complaint Ex.P.1 which was received by the Sub Inspector of Police, who registered a case in Crime No.280 of 2008 under sec.147,148, 452, 302, 324, 427 r/w 149 IPC against the appellants. (h) He prepared the printed First Information Report Ex.P.102 and forwarded the same to the learned Judicial Magistrate Court, Puducherry and also to the Inspector of Police. (i) P.W.42 was the Inspector of Police, Kirumambakkam. He received the First Information Report on 28.10.2008 at around 3.00 a.m, went to the hospital and enquired P.W.2 and other witnesses. (j) He forwarded the body of the deceased to the Puducherry Government General Hospital. He went to the scene of occurrence at 6.30 a.m, and prepared the observation mahazar and sketch and he also seized various articles as material objects at the scene of occurrence under mahazar in the presence of various witnesses. (k) He proceeded to the General Hospital and in the presence of witnesses, conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased and prepared inquest report. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statements. He gave a request for conducting postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. (l) P.W.39 was the Medical Officer in the Forensic department of Government Hospital, Puducherry. On 28.10.2008, around 2.00 p.m, he conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. He found an abrasion on the front middle of the chest. On internal examination, he found fracture of the sternum between the 2nd and 3rd rib and fracture of 2,3 and 4th rib and on dissection he found a contusion over the right article and over the left ventricle of the heart. He opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage due to blunt injuries to the chest. (m) P.W.42 examined all the injured witnesses in the hospital and also P.Ws.1 to 5 and recorded their statements. He seized the blood stained clothes of the injured under mahazar. He examined the mahazar witnesses and recorded their statements. (n) On 30.10.2008 around 6.00 a.m., he arrested A.12 and A.13 at Narambai Arrack Shop. He recorded their confession statements in front of P.W.28 Village Administrative Officer. Pursuant to their confession, he proceeded to Cuddalore and at the Cuddalore Bus Stand, he arrested A.4 A.11, A.8, A.9, A.10, A.15, A.16 and brought them to the police station. He recorded their confession statements in the presence of the same witness . (o) In pursuance of confession given by A.11, he recovered a casuarina stick (M.O.50). In pursuant to the confession given by A.13 he recovered another stick (M.O.51). From A.4 iron pipe (M.O.52) A.12 iron pipe (M.O.53) A.10 knife (M.O.54); from A.15 casuarina stick (M.O.55) A.8 another stick (M.O.56), A.9 another stick (M.O.57), A.16 Iron pipe (M.O.58).He remanded all the accused for judicial custody. (p) On 1.11.2008, he showed the weapons to the doctor who conducted the post mortem and obtained his opinion. He also received the postmortem report. He also examined some more prosecution witnesses and recorded their statements. (q) On 10.11.2008 around 6.30 a.m., he arrested A.17 and on his information, he went to Mandakapatti village and arrested A.7, A.5 and A.14. He brought them to police station and recorded their statements in front of P.W.28. He recovered a casuarina stick from A.11 (M.O.59) from A5 a stick (M.O.60), A.7 a stick (M.O.61) A.14 another stick (M.O.62) in the presence of the same witnesses and remanded them for judicial custody. (r) On 13.11.2008, he arrested A.3 at Pachiankuppam around 1.00 p.m. He recorded the statement in the presence of the same witnesses and he recovered an iron suluki (M.O.63) and remanded the accused. (s) On 19.11.2008 he arrested A.6 and recorded his confession in the presence of the same witnesses and recovered a causrina stick (M.O.64) and remanded the accused. THEreafter, the investigation was transferred to CB CID. (t) P.W.44, further investigated the case. On 27.11.2008, P.W.43, on instructions from P.W.44 went in search of the remaining accused. At 4.00 p.m, he arrested A.1 and A.2 at Villupuram and produced them before P.W.44. (u) P.W.44 examined A.1 and A.2 recorded their confession in the presence of one Subramani and Jayaraman. In pursuance to their confession, he recovered an iron pipe from A.1 and a stick from A.2. He remanded the accused for judicial custody. He examined the witnesses and recorded their statement. (v) On 18.12.2008 he examined the doctors and obtained wound certificates. He completed the investigation and filed a charge sheet on 13.2.2009 before the Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry. The case was taken on file by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Puducherry, who took the case in PRC 8 of 2009 and later committed to Principal Sessions Court and the same was transferred to III Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry for trial. To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined 45 witnesses, marked 102 documents and produced 66 Material Objects. On the side of the Defence, 5 documents were marked.
(3.) ON analaysing the oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Judge found that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and convicted and sentenced the accused as above. Aggrieved by which all the accused have filed the present appeal. The point for consideration is whether the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court is sustainable in law.;