During the altercation, appellant number 2 caught hold of PW2 and appellant number 4 pulled the tuft of PW1 and dishonoured her.
The appellant number.
Much ado was made by the appellants about the failure of the prosecution to explain the injuries suffered by the appellants accused party and to companytend that the real genesis of the crime was number forthcoming.
The appellant number.
He had number only examined PW1 and PW2 immediately after the incident but also the appellants.
375 of 2004 registered at the instance of the appellants.
Resultantly, Periyasamy suffered injuries and was rushed to the hospital in a serious companydition.
Finally, whilst in hospital Periyasamy was declared dead on 9th December, 2004.
When PW1 questioned them, she was assaulted by appellant number 4 and also by appellant number.
The prosecution examined 18 witnesses to prove the charges against the appellants.
1 and 3.
The Trial Court held that there was numbertangible reason to discard the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 5 which was truthful and reliable.
The injuries suffered by the appellants were, however, found to be simple injuries.
The Trial Court also held that the evidence establishes that a free fight started between the family of the appellants and the family of the companyplainant party in which Periyasamy suffered injuries caused by thadi to which he finally succumbed.
The appellants challenged the decision of the Trial Court by way of Criminal Appeal No.
The appellants had suffered injuries.
In this background, the appellants were charged and tried for the aforementioned offence.
The same have been appropriately companysidered by the Trial Court and rejected, being devoid of merits.
They started the fight and assaulted the appellants.
The High Court has agreed with the companyclusions reached by the Trial Court on each ground urged by the appellants.
832 of 2008 before the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
The internal injuries caused to him have also been numbered in the post mortem report Ex.
1, 2 and 5 assaulted Periyasamy on left side of his head, chest and cheek with thadi.
Her husband, deceased Periyasamy rushed to support and rescue PW1.
He opined that deceased succumbed to death due to injury sustained on his head.
The evidence clearly shows that on 4.12.2004 in the morning at 7 oclock when PW1 was erecting fence around the nursery, at that time appellants gathered on the spot and smashed the fence.
However, the prosecution failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants.
This companytention has been rejected by the Trial Court as well as the High Court, having found that the injuries suffered by them were simple injuries and would number make any difference to the case established by the prosecution.
Further, the evidence produced by the prosecution was companytradictory and did number establish the guilt of the appellants.
1 to 4 criminally intimidated PW2 and also assaulted deceased Periyasamy indiscriminately on his chest with thadi.
The Signature Not Verified appellant number 4 is the wife of appellant number 3.
The defence of the appellants, as can be discerned from the written statement filed by the appellants purported to be under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, was that the companyplainant party was the aggressor.
According to the Digitally signed by CHETAN KUMAR Date 2017.08.14 125749 IST Reason prosecution, on 4.12.2004, at about 7.00 a.m., near the house of PW1 Saradha, due to previous enmity in companynection with some land dispute between the appellants family and the family of the deceased, the appellants with the companymon object of causing the death of the deceased Periyasamy husband of PW1 and causing hurt to witnesses Saradha PW1 and Tamil Selvan PW2 , formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and companymitted riot.
The appellant number.
In this appeal, five main points were urged by the appellants, as numbered in paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment.
The appellant number 1 assaulted PW1 and PW2 with Thadi wooden log on their left leg knee and chest respectively, causing simple injuries.
These companytentions were a reiteration of the points urged before the Trial Court on behalf of the appellants.
The Trial Court also rejected the plea taken by the appellants that the place of occurrence was doubtful.
The appellants, however, did number produce any oral evidence.
62 of 2006, after analyzing the evidence produced by the prosecution and adverting to each of the companytentions raised by the appellants vide judgment dated 19th November, 2008, found all the appellants guilty of the stated offence.
In other words, both the Courts have companycurrently found that the evidence of eye witnesses, in particular, PWs 1, 2 and 5, was credible and sufficient to bring home the guilt against the appellants for the companycerned offences.
The Trial Court rejected the companytention raised by the appellants that the prosecution bypassed the earlier report and the statement given by PW1 in Krishnagiri Government Hospital.
The High Court was pleased to affirm the view taken by the Trial Court as just and proper and rejected the said companytentions.
He has opined that about eleven ante mortem external injuries and rigor marks were present all over the body of deceased Periyasamy.
The prosecution also failed to explain as to why the companyplaint made by the appellants was number pursued to its logical end after investigation.
3 and 5 are the sons of appellant number.
The Trial Court rejected the companytention of the appellants that the true genesis of the offence is number forthcoming and in fact has been suppressed by the prosecution by number offering explanation for pursuing the Crime No.
1 and 2.
The appellant number 5 also assaulted Periyasamy with thadi on his left side chest and left leg.
The injuries caused to the members of the companyplainant party have been proved by the prosecution including by examining Dr. Chandrasekaran PW 11.
M. KHANWILKAR, J. The appellants Accused Nos.
1 to 5, respectively were tried for an offence punishable under Sections 147, 324, 324 r w 149, 355 r w 149, 506 ii , 506 ii r w 149, 302 and 302 r w 149.
The nature of injuries caused to deceased Periyasamy has been companyroborated by Dr. R Vallinayagam PW16, who companyducted his post mortem.
The appellant number 2 is the wife of appellant number 1.
