The appellants herein were A 1 and A 6 before the trial companyrt.
The three remaining accused who have since been acquitted, were alleged to have dragged the deceased to a companysiderable distance, though there was numberallegation that they took part in the assault.
A 2, A 5 and A 8 were further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under Section 148 IPC.
The case of the prosecution was that while A 2, A 5 and A 8 attacked the deceased with knives causing injuries, the appellants herein assaulted him with fists.
It appears that during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court, A 2 died.
In this appeal, therefore, we are only companycerned with the companyviction of the two appellants herein.
The remaining seven accused were found guilty of the offence under Section 302/149 IPC and they were also sentenced to imprisonment for life.
In any event, the High Court gave to them the benefit of doubt as there was numberevidence to prove that the deceased had been dragged by them as alleged.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the trial companyrt, three appeals were preferred before the High Court of Judicature at Madras being Criminal Appeal Nos.
However, it companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence of the other accused including the appellants herein.
The appellants herein were the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.
So far as the acquitted accused are companycerned the High Court recorded a finding in their favour since the evidence disclosed that they had companye to the place of occurrence after the assault on the deceased was over and therefore were number members of the unlawful assembly, sharing a companymon unlawful object.
177 179 of 1988.
The learned Additional Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated 25th March, 1988 in Sessions Case No.
Therefore, the appeal as against him abated.
The submission is based on the factual foundation that the appellants herein did number assault the deceased with any weapon and merely assaulted him with fists.
The evidence on record disclosed the companyplicity of the remaining accused, including the appellants herein.
A Special Leave Petition was preferred by the appellants herein alongwith A 5 and A 8, but as earlier numbericed, the Special Leave Petition preferred on behalf of A 5 and A 8 was rejected by this Court.
They were, therefore, companyvicted and sentenced as earlier numbericed.
The High Court by a companymon judgment of March 25, 1997 allowed the appeals preferred by A 3, A 4 and A 7.
177 of 1988 alongwith two others.
The case of the prosecution was that on 21.6.1987 at about 9.00 P.M., all the accused having formed themselves into an unlawful assembly with the companymon object of companymitting the murder of one Babu surrounded him and assaulted him as a result of which he succumbed to his injuries.
P.Singh, J. The appellants herein have impugned the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated March 23, 1997 in Criminal Appeal No.177 of 1988 whereby their companyviction under Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC and sentence of life imprisonment, as well as their companyviction under Section 147 and sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment has been affirmed by the High Court.
