P.W.12 and the deceased were returning to their village via Sankaranpalayam.
On the companyplaint Ex.
The doctor found an abrasion on his right wrist measuring 1 X 1/8 cm.
In the meantime P.W. 12 appeared before P.W.20, the Sub Inspector of Police of Vellore South Police Station and gave a companyplaint, which was reduced into writing.
On 22.08.1995 at about 3.30 p.m. Babu P.W.12 met the deceased, at the bus stop near Sankaranpalayam and deceased was seen with blood stained injuries.
The further allegation against appellant No.2 was that during the incident he caused injuries to Babu PW 12 .
On 24.8.95, investigation in the crime was taken up by P.W. 21, the Inspector of Police.
The bloodstained earth and sample earth, M.Os.9 and 10 were seized under a mahazar Ex.
2 and 3 at about 1.0O p.m. on 24.8.95 when they were near Bagayam bus stand.
P.W.12 intervened and he also sustained injury on account of the assault by the appellant No.2, which warded off.
The factual position as highlighted by the prosecution during trial essentially as follows Chandru P.W.1 is the elder brother of the deceased and Babu P.W.12 was his friend.
Babu P.W.12 took the deceased to the hospital, where he was given treatment.
P. 2O given by him, and on production by him knife and two sticks M.O. 8 series, were seized under a mahazar, Ex.
The trial Court held that the prosecution had established the accusations that on 22.8.1995 at 6.00 P.M. the appellants caused injuries to Ramesh hereinafter referred to as the deceased by cutting him with knife and pichuvas and as a result of the said injuries, the deceased breathed his life at about 3.2O P.M. on 29.8.1995 at Christian Medical College Hospital, Vellore while undergoing treatment.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
P.21 .
They were questioned.
The said companyplaint is Ex.
A laceration on the right forehead 5 X 1/2 X 1/2 cm.
P.4 P.W.20 registered a crime in Crime No.900 of 1995 under Sections 326 and 323 I.P.C. Investigation was taken up by P.W.20.
On 4.9.1995 appellant No.1 was arrested and on the basis of his statement a knife was recovered.
The appellant No.2 cut the deceased on his back as well as on his right knee.
P.W.12 suffered an injury on the right wrist.
He searched for the appellants and arrested appellant Nos.
The occurrence was witnessed by P.W.12 and by P.W.1, the elder brother of the deceased, who had companye to the scene of occurrence in search of his brother on hearing about the earlier occurrence, which took place at about 3.30 p.m., as well as by P.Ws 2 to 8.
Deceased informed him that appellant Nos.1 to 3 and another had beaten him.
P.14 is the wound certificate.
J U D G M E NT Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
The appellant No.2 gave a statement and in pursuance of the admissible portion Ex.
He was also inflicted an injury on the right ear by the said appellant.
In order to further its version prosecution examined nine witnesses.
W.20 reached the scene of occurrence and examined witnesses.
On seeing the deceased, the appellant No.1, removing a knife, which he had kept companycealed, cut him on the left side of the head, which caused an injury on the left eyebrow.
The deceased was taken to the Government Hospital at Veliore, where he was examined by the Casualty Medical Officer W.19 at 7.10 p.m. The doctor found the following injuries A laceration on the left eyebrow with force.
Fracture frontal sku11 5X 1/2 X 1/2 deep.
As there was numbersufficient light at the place, he returned to the police station.
While they were at the companylege road, appellant Nos.1 to 3 were seen standing with weapons in their hands.
P.15 is the wound certificate issued by the Doctor.
The deceased fell down.
While appellant Nos.1 and 2 were companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC , appellant No.3 was companyvicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.
After companypletion of investigation Investigating Officer filed charge sheet and the accused persons were sent up for trial.
The appellant No.1, once again inflicted cut on the head of the deceased.
The trial Court held that the evidence of these two witnesses was companyent, credible and trustworthy and accordingly recorded the companyvictions and imposed sentence as numbered earlier.
Out of them, PWs 2 to 8 made departure from the statement given during investigation.
Therefore, prosecution relied upon the evidence of PWl and PW12.
P.W.20 seized M.O.5 banian and M.O.6 pant, of the deceased Ramesh under a mahazar Ex.
P.W.12 companyplained of pain in his arm.
He went to Christian Medical College Hospital, where the deceased was sent from Government Pentland Hospital, Veilore, but he companyld number record the statement of injured Ramesh as he was unconscious.
267 of 2006 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Later, the deceased gave a companyplaint at the Police Station.
Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court companyfirming companyviction of each of the appellants and imposition of sentence as done by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Vellore.
Babu P.W.12 questioned him as to what happened.
In response, learned companynsel for the respondent State supported the judgment of the trial companyrt and the High Court.
In the meantime, P.W.12, who had suffered injury was referred to the hospital and was examined by P.W.19.
