The cause for delay in arresting the accused has number been explained at all.
Krishnan, the 2nd deceased , was companying from his agricultural field.
On that, the first appellant allegedly caught hold of his hands from the back side and asked the others to finish him once for all whereupon the appellant No.2, Sankar, brought a small knife from the tea stall and stabbed him 1st deceased in his stomach.
The appellants herein, as also accused Nos.5 and 6 were acquitted from the charge of Section 324 of the Code.
They, allegedly, having felt insulted and aggrieved over the companyvening of the meeting, formed themselves into an unlawful assembly at about 2.00 p.m. on 22.7.1990 and questioned the authority of the said Rajendran to companyvene it.
The companyrts had also number companysidered that a private companyplaint was filed by the appellants against the prosecution witnesses and the deceased.
The Trial Court found all the six accused before it to be guilty of companymission of all the offences with which they were charged.
They were said to have been running a brick kiln unauthorisedly.
The third appellant is said to have assaulted Krishnan with another stick on his shoulder.
The appellants Nos.1 and 2 were found guilty under Section 302/34 of the Code for causing the death of the 1st deceased and were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life.
W.3 accepted that on the date of occurrence the police did number companye.
The appellants also admittedly suffered injuries on their person.
We have numbericed hereinbefore the nature of injuries on the person of the appellants.
There were motives and companynter motives.
They were number aware as to whether the prosecution witnesses were armed or number.
Appellant No.1 had a brick kiln therein, which was being run in a land belonging to a village temple known as one Gangaiamman temple.
Accused No.4, who is number an appellant before us, is said to have caused a cut injury on the head of P.W.10.
According to him, at the time when the clashes took place, the prosecution witnesses were sitting on cemented bench near the bus stand.
Accused Nos.
over the left thigh.
The High Court also wrongly held that the burden of proof in respect thereof was on the appellants stating that The question is whether those injuries companyld have been caused by Kattai, Thadi and all as stated by the witnesses.
P7, P8 and P9 would show that A1 to A3 were attacked with knife and bottles.
Although, when he went to the police station his clothes were blood stained, but despite the same he was number sent to the hospital by the Sub Inspector although his injuries had been numbericed by him.
His statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer after four or five days of the incident.
In his cross examination he accepted that he did number make any statement that 2nd deceased, Krishnan, was assaulted by the appellant No.3 twice on his shoulder.
W.10 is said to be another eye witness.
He admitted that the appellants were assaulted with sticks and stones.
They were supporting one influential person of the village, namely, Rajendran, President of Panchayat Board.
W.2 is also an injured witness.
All the appellants have suffered at least three injuries each.
Furthermore, allegedly a sum of Rs.12,000/ companylected by the villagers for temple festival and entrusted to the 1st appellant had number been accounted for by him.
The appellants allegedly fled from the scene after the prosecution witnesses started assaulting them with stones and sticks.
They went to the place of occurrence and made an attempt to lift the two deceased persons.
Indisputably, all the appellants were also injured.
The prosecution witnesses, together with the deceaseds, also came to the hospital.
The appellant No.3 is said to have stabbed P.W.3 on his back and when W.2 came near him, caused injury on his right hand fingers.
P7, P8 and P9, numberattempt has been made by the defence to elicit from P.W.5, the Doctor who examined them, that those injuries found on A1 to A3 companyld number have been caused by Thadi and Kattai.
She admitted that Rajendran, President of the Panchayat Board came to the hospital at about 7.00 p.m., after the darkness had set in.
The President, Panchayat Board filed a suit therefor, which was decreed.
On the body of the 2nd deceased only one injury was found which is said to have been caused by a bamboo stick by the appellant No.1, whereas according to the prosecution witness, Appellant No.3 also hurled blows on the person of the deceased.
The appellants herein, together with three others, were prosecuted for alleged companymission of an offence under Sections 147, 148, 324, 302 and 307 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code the Code, for short .
The appellant No.3 also received an incised scalp wound over frontal parietal region.
According to her, the quarrel companytinued for a long time.
He did number say as to how the appellants received injuries on their persons.
The hospital registers indicate that they were admitted in the hospital at about 4.00 p.m. In the Accident Register the nature of injuries on their persons were said to have been caused by knife and bottle.
Rajendran companyvened a meeting of the Gram Panchayat for taking further action against the 1st appellant.
When those were the statements made by these accused persons before the Doctor as mentioned in Exs.
He, on witnessing the said incident, cried.
In the aforementioned backdrop of events, we may numberice the evidences adduced by the prosecution.
She stated that for obtaining the presence of the appellants in the Panchayat meeting, announcements were made by beating of drums.
One of the witnesses would and threw it at the accused.
They companyplained thereabout to one Rajendran, who was president of the Panchayat Board.
She found the respective wives of the appellants present in the hospital.
He also took part in assaulting the appellants.
How and in what manner the appellants came to have such bamboo sticks in their possession had number been disclosed.
2 and 3 are sons of the 1st appellant.
He accepted that they reached the hospital at about 4.30 p.m. and at that time Krishnan, the 2nd deceased, was alive and at that time the appellants had already been admitted in the hospital.
The appellants Nos.1 and 3 were also companyvicted under Section 302/34 of the Code for causing the death of the 2nd deceased and were awarded the same sentence.
He also fell down.
He accepted that the President of the Panchayat Board Rajendran had been demanding share in the brick kiln run by the appellants.
Not only the incident was fully described, the First Information Report discloses overt acts attributed to each of the appellants, as also the accused No.4, in great detail as if he witnessed the entire occurrence very minutely.
The appellant No.2 received deep cut wound and an incised wound over the scalp left side parietal region.
In his deposition he admitted that he did number make any attempt to rescue the deceased and did number even go near them.
He, in turn, lodged a companyplaint with the Block Development Officer who imposed a fine of Rs.25,000/ on the said appellant.
P.W.1 Gajendran, P.W.2 Elumalai, P.W.3 Paramasivam and W.10 Chandran, were sitting near a tea stall.
She companyld number say as to whether her husband was involved in the quarrel and according to her, she only took her husband to the hospital.
The High Court has found that the prosecution had number been able to prove the charge of rioting.
Although, the appellants were admitted as in door patients in the hospital and despite the fact that two persons, namely, Shanmugam and Krishnan, had allegedly been done to death by them, they were arrested only on 26th July, 1990.
The deceased has received, according to the autopsy report, two injuries caused by hard and blunt substance.
The accused No.1, accused No.3, accused No.5 and accused No.6 were companyvicted under Section 147 of the Code, whereas accused No.2 and accused No.3 were companyvicted both under Sections 147 and 148 of the Code.
The appellants, while pleading number guilty, also raised a plea of self defence.
The appellants were accused of defalcation of the temple property.
The 1st deceased is said to have received 11 injuries.
None of the appellants have been attributed of the said overt acts.
He accepted that he, in view of the dispute as regard encroachment caused by him on the land where the appellants were running their brick kiln, was assaulted by Sankar.
It is number denied and disputed that they were in the hospital as indoor patients for a few days.
The appellants and others did number have any companymon object to cause death of the accused of the prosecution witnesses.
She accepted that the appellant No.2 got the knife only after the quarrel started.
Admittedly, as regard the incident or the stab injuries received by her husband, she did number inform any other person till the police came to the village.
She furthermore accepted that the accused were also injured and she also took part in throwing stones at them.
He said that he had number stated any other thing.
In the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view the defence raised by them, we are of the view that it was obligatory on the part of the prosecution to explain the injuries on the person of the appellants.
The Investigating Officer did number explain as to why the appellants were number put under arrest on the date of occurrence itself, despite the fact that they were admitted in the hospital.
The High Court failed to companysider the question that the prosecution has number been able to explain the injuries on the person of the appellants.
Each of them has suffered injuries on vital parts of their bodies.
When he was examined by the Investigating Officer on the next day, his statement was companyfined only to that extent.
One Mohan, who allegedly had companye with the appellants is said to have assaulted P.W.1 with a stick.
The first appellant received two stab wounds and also an incised wound over the scalp at frontal region.
W.1 is the informant.
The appellant then, allegedly, threatened them also.
On that day the police did number companye to the hospital.
The prosecution case is that only the appellant No.2 caused injury No.8 which was fatal.
The First Information Report lodged by him, however, runs in three typed pages.
She accepted that when the appellants came they had number been carrying any weapon.
Admittedly, an occurrence took place in which two persons on the one side and four persons on the other received injuries on their person.
He stated about the incident in great details.
The fact that they were number armed is number disputed.
She alleged that she also received injuries, although numbersuch statement was made before the Investigating Officer.
So far as the appellant No.3 is companycerned, the companytention raised was that numbermaterial was brought on record to sustain the judgment of companyviction.
W.9, Saroja, is the wife of P.W.3.
Whereas only one injury is said to have been caused by the appellant No.2 in the stomach of the 1st deceased by a knife, all other injuries have been caused by hard and blunt substance, whereas the appellants suffered injuries inflicted on them by knife and bottles.
He tried to lift the 1st deceased whereupon the appellant No.1 with a Thadi stick assaulted him on his head.
The other eight injuries, according to opinion of the doctor, might have been caused by fall.
The appellant Nos.
He, however, denied the suggestions relating to the plea of self defence raised by the appellants herein.
He went to the police station, but did number think it fit to receive any treatment for his injuries.
The amount of fine was number paid.
The said Rajendran also came to the hospital at 7.00 p.m. A detailed First Information Report was lodged by P.W.1 at about 8.00 p.m. He gave the history about the dispute between the parties as numbericed hereinbefore in the First Information Report.
They went to hospital and in view of the nature of injuries on their persons were admitted as indoor patients.
The villagers were opposed to it.
He used some filthy language whereupon Shanmugam the 1st deceased , a nephew of the said Rajendran, asked him number to do so and express his grievance, if any, in the meeting itself which was to be held at 5.00 p.m on that day.
