The police after registering the case took up investigation and on companypletion thereof submitted chargesheet against all the 11 accused persons on receipt whereof companynizance was taken and the accused persons were companymitted to the Court of Sessions to face trial.
2,4,6,8,9,10 and 11 assaulted him with sticks as a result of which he fell down on the ground and succumbed to the injuries.
A 5 is said to have inflicted a stab injury with knife on the head of Kuppusamy while Appellant No.
2 stabbed Kuppusamy with a bill hook.
The appellants were further companyvicted under Sections 148 and 324 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and two years respectively for the aforesaid offences.
1,2,3,4,5,6, 9 and 11.
According to them numberoccurrence, as alleged, had taken place and the members of the prosecution party had received injuries in some other manner of occurrence at some other place.
In the same transaction, PW.3 was assaulted by accused Nos.1,2,3,4,5,6,7 and 9 with their respective weapons and PW.4 was assaulted by accused Nos.
Upon hearing the same, Kuppusamy along with PWs.
When they were sitting in front of the hut of PW.7, PWs.5 and 6 came there with injured and all of them remained in the hut of PW.7 during night.
11 was acquitted by the trial companyrt.
12 and 14 are police witnesses.
At that time, A 1 and A 3 assaulted Kuppusamy with iron rods and thereafter accused Nos.
2, 8 and 9 are the doctors who are said to have companyducted the postmortem examination as well as examined the injured persons.
5 and 6 were working and when they were crossing through the field of one Janakiramam Chettiar they were waylaid by the accused persons, including the appellants.
PW.1 along with wife of PW.3 and her sister in law took the injured persons to the hut belonging to PW.7, who was working in the field of Janakiramam Chettiar.
Defence did number examine any witnesses in support of its case.
The sentences were, however, directed to run companycurrently.
Upon the companyclusion of trial, the accused persons were companyvicted, as stated above, and companyviction of the appellants having been companyfirmed by the High Court, the present appeal by special leave.
PW.10 is a formal witness and PW.11 is the Village Administrative Officer, who recorded statement of the informant whereas PWs.
So far as the other accused persons are companycerned, they have been acquitted of all the charges levelled against them by the High Court.
3 to 6 claimed to be injured as well and PW.
As PW.1 was scared during night, she went to PW.11 Village Administrative Officer in the next morning at 8 Oclock and narrated the incident to him who recorded her statement which was forwarded to the companycerned police station on the basis of which first information report was drawn up on the same day at 9.45 a.m. against the 11 accused persons.
When PW.1 came near the injured persons, the accused persons fled away.
During trial the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in all out of whom PWs.
1,3,4,5,6 and 7 claimed to be the eyewitnesses to the occurrence out of whom PWs.
The prosecution case is that on 4.2.1988 at about 11 p.m. when PW.1 Thirumathi Sundarambal, PW.3 Venkatasamy, PW.4 Govindaraj and Kuppusamy were in their field hut in Village Govindapalayam they heard alarm being raised by PW.5 Sekar, PW.6 Durai and two others who had gone to work in the field belonging to the family of PW.1.
1 is the informant herself.
1, 3 and 4 proceeded to the field where PWs.
Defence of the accused persons was that they were innocent and were falsely implicated in the case on hand.
