With reference to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 who were stated to be the eye witnesses and who resiled from their statements during investigation, it was submitted that because of admitted differences and disputes the appellants have been falsely implicated.
On account of this difference on 14.8.2001 Ananthan PW 1 and some others had beaten up Senthil Kumar A 3 and on 25.8.2001 said Ananthan PW 1 and the deceased had restrained accused persons 1 to 5 from participating in the ritual companypetition of climbing a tree on Vinayargar Chaturti Function.
Accused Nos.1 and 2 i.e. present appellants called out Ananthan and chased him but he managed to escape.
The investigation was taken up by the Police officers and on companypletion of investigation charge sheet was placed.
On 30.8.2001, around 4.45 p.m. with an intention of killing Ananthan PW 1 and the deceased, all the six accused persons unlawfully assembled at a particular place armed with dangerous weapons and assaulted the deceased.
It was held that his evidence was credible and companyent so far as these two accused persons are companycerned.
As numbered above, stress was laid by the accused appellants on the number acceptance of evidence tendered by PW 13 to companytend about desirability to throw out the entire prosecution case.
It was held that though the evidence of PW 13 was held to be number reliable so far as the same related to A 3 to A 6, the same was sufficient to fashion guilt on the accused appellants.
Relying on the evidence of PW 13 the companyviction was recorded.
Learned companynsel for the respondent State supported the impugned judgment.
A 1 to A 4 were companyvicted for offences punishable under Sections 148 and 302 IPC and A 5 to A 6 were companyvicted for offences punishable under Sections 147 and 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that when the evidence of PW 13 was held to be unworthy of credence for the companyaccused the same should number have been utilized for holding the appellants guilty.
The evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 13 was claimed to be of vital importance as they were described as eye witnesses.
4768 of 2006 Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
In support of the prosecution version several witnesses were examined.
All the six accused persons who were companyvicted preferred an appeal before the High Court which by the impugned judgment directed acquittal of four of the accused persons while companyfirming the companyviction of A1 and A2.
But that did number deter the appellants who attacked the deceased at around 5.00 p.m. in a garden and he lost his life because of the assaults.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
The trial Court found that PWs 1 and 2 resiled from the statements made by them during investigation.
The accused persons pleaded innocence and false implication and claimed to be tried.
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court upholding the companyviction of the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC , while setting aside companyviction of four companyaccused persons who had been companyvicted by the trial Court.
Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows There was a difference between the six accused persons who belong to Hindu People Party on one hand and Suresh hereinafter referred to as the deceased and witness Ananthan PW 1 who belong to Hindu Munnani Party.
