BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:
10. 01/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Criminal Appeal (MD).No.40 o”
1. Felix Rajkumar 2.John Victor 3.Santhosh Akaikalaraj 4.Gandhi @ Joseph 5.Henri 6.Amalraj .. Appellants vs. State by the Inspector of Police Kallakudi Police Station, Thiruchirappalli District. .. Respondent Cr.No.54/2002 Criminal appeal is filed under Section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code against the conviction and sentence passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge-cum-Fast Track Court No.1, Thiruchirappalli in S.C.No.45 of 2005, dated 29.11.2005 and prays to set aside the same. !For appellants ... Mr.S.Ashok Kumar Senior Counsel for Mr.AR.Jeya Rhuthran ^For respondent ... Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public Prosecutor :JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.NAGAMUTHU, J) Challenge in this appeal is to the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants. in S.C.No.45 of 2009. on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court not I, Tiruchy. Altogether, there were 7 accused in this case. One of the accused by name Premkumar absconded, even before framing of charges. Therefore, the case against him was split up. Thus, the appellants, who were accused A1 to A6, in this case faced the trial. The trial Court convicted the first accused under Sections 302 IPC (2 counts) and the accused 2 to 6 for the offence under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC (single Count). The first accused has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for each count and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- for each count, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each count. Accused 2 to 6 have been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The sentences imposed on the first accused has been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.
2. The trial Court framed as many as six charges. The first charge is against all the accused under Section 147 IPC. The second charge is against all the accused under Section 148 IPC for having been members of the unlawful assembly with dangerous weapons. The third charges is against the fourth accused under Section 324 IPC for having caused simple injury on PW1 with aruval. The fourth charge is under Section 341 IPC against all the accused for having wrongfully restrained the first deceased. The fifth charge is under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC (2 counts) against all the accused. The sixth charge is under Section 506 (ii)IPC against all the accused.
3. But a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court would go to show that the trial Court has not given any finding in respect of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 324, 341 and 506 (ii) IPC. The trial Court has not either acquitted or convicted these accused from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 324, 341 and 506 (ii) IPC. So far as the charges under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC (2 counts) is concerned, the trial Court has convicted the first appellant under Section 302 IPC simplicitor for two counts. In respect of others, the trial Court has not convicted them by invoking Section 149 IPC. Instead the trial Court has convicted them by invoking Section 109 IPC. Even then, the trial Court has not given any finding against the accused 2 to 6 in respect of the next count of Section 302 r/w 149 IPC. The judgment is not further clear as to whether the accused 2 to 6 have been convicted for the offence under Section 302 r/w 109 IPC in respect of the death of the first deceased or the second deceased. In our considered view, the judgment of the trial Court does not satisfy any legal norm and therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be sustained. In normal course, in such an event, this Court would have remanded the case back to the trial Court for pronouncing fresh judgment strictly in accordance with law, by giving specific finding as against each charge. But, we do not propose to do so, in view of the fact that we are not satisfied with the quality of the evidence let in by the prosecution, in respect of any of the charges. We will give our reasons infra.
4. The facts of the case would be as follows;- There was a dispute in respect of the property between the first accused and the deceased. The said dispute was a long standing dispute, which has resulted in ill-feeling between the two families. PW1 is the sister of PW2. The deceased Vincent (hereinafter referred as D1) is the son of PW1. The second deceased Mr.Sebastian (hereinafter referred as D2) is the brother of PW1. They were all residing at Alambakkam Village, in Trichy District. While so, on 27.01.2002 at about 3.30 p.m. the wife of sixth accused came there and requested PW1 and the inmates of the house to leave the house, immediately, as some people were coming to the house of PW1 with weapons like Kuthukol and spear. But, PW1 and D1 did not leave the house.
5. At about 4.00 p.m. all these six accused and the absconding accused Premkumar rushed to the house of D1. The sixth accused directed the other accused to do away with the deceased. Immediately A3 attacked D1 with aruval on his left chest. D1 attempted to escape. He ran towards west. All the seven accused chased him. PW2 and one Fathima marry also followed them. When D1 rushed towards Kuchakottu Tank, all the seven accused surrounded D1. At that time the first accused cut D1 on this head. The absconding accused Premkumar cut him with aruval on his neck. The second accused, John Victor cut him with aruval on the left leg. The fifth accused, Henry, cut him on the left shoulder. The fourth accused, Gandhi @ Joseph cut him with aruval on the left shoulder. PW1 and PW2 tried to rescue D1. At that time, the third accused, Santhosh Adaikalaraj, cut PW1 on her left wrist. D1 fell down in a pool of blood. He died instantaneously.
6. Then all the seven accused, proceeded towards west and reached the house of PW1. D2, Sebastian, was not residing with PW1. On hearing about the incident, D2 had come to the house of D1. These accused, who had just returned from Kuchakottu Tank, on seeing D2, cut him with aruval indiscriminately all over his body. He fell down in a pool of blood and died instantaneously. Thereafter, all the accused threatened PW1, PW2 and other witnesses of dire consequences, by warding off the aruval against the witnesses. All the seven accused run away from the scene of occurrence.
7. PW1, thereafter, went to the Kallakudi police station and preferred a complaint (vide Ex.P1) at 7 p.m. On 27.01.2002. PW16 was the then Inspector of Police attached to the Kallakudi Police Station. On receipt of Ex.P1, at 7 p.m. he registered a case in Cr.No.54 of 2002 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 506(ii) and 302 IPC. Ex.P24 is the First Information Report. He forwarded Ex.P1 and Ex.P24 to the jurisdictional Magistrate and then, handed over the case diary to the Inspector of Police for investigation. The First Information Report was received by the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate at 9.30 p.m on 27.01.2002 (vide endorsement of the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate on Ex.P24) 8. PW17, is the then Inspector of Police, attached to Kallakudi Police Station. On 27.01.2002 at 8.30 p.m. he took up the case for investigation. He proceeded to the place of occurrence and prepared an observation mahazar(Ex.P25) in the presence of PW9 and another witness. He also prepared a rough sketch (Ex.P26) showing the place of occurrence. Then, between 11.30 p.m. and 12 mid night, he recovered blood stained earth and sample earth from the place of occurrence, where D1's body was lying, under Ex.P27 mahazar. Then between 12 midnight and 2.30 a.m. he conducted inquest on the body of D1 and prepared Ex.P28 inquest report. Then, he forwarded the body of D1 for postmortem. On the same day between 3.00 a.m. and 5.30 a.m. he conducted inquest on the body of D2 and prepared Ex.P29 inquest report. Then he forwarded the body of D2 also for postmortem.
9. PW10, doctor Rajkumar was a civil surgeon attached to Lalgudi Government hospital. On 28.01.2002 at 11.40 a.m. he conducted autopsy on the body of D1. He found the following injuries:- 1. Deep cut injury over the right side of head from above the ear to the nape of the neck - 18 X 8 X 8 cm entering deep into the neck with ear lobe completely cut.
2. Deep cut injury below the right ear extending from the cheek to the occiput - 16 X 8 X 8 cm, below the occiput entering deep into the neck with the spinal completely cut through ... through the vertebral column at the level of C1 C2.
3. Cut injury 4 X 3 X 1 cm lateral to the left eye.
4. Abrasion 3 X 3 X 1/2 cm over left portion of forehead.
5. Linear incised wound 5 X 2 X 1/2 cm over left shoulder 6. Linear incised wound 4 x 2 x 1/2 cm over left deltoid 7. Linear cut injury 5 X 2 X 1 cm over back of left shoulder.
8. Deep cut injury 5 x 3 x 3 cm over left side chest above the nipple.
9. Deep cut injury 10 X 8 X 5 cm over the calf muscle, bone depth on the left side.
10. Chest internal injury corresponding to injury 8 with left 2nd rib completely cut with surrounding haematoma. Then at 12.30 p.m., he conducted autopsy on the body of D2, and he noticed the following injuries:- 1. Deep cut injury over the whole right side of head exploring the brain over right parietal region through the occiput to the upper part of neck of 12 X 8 cm X entering the cranial cavity from parietal to the neck.
2. The whole of skull bone on the right side deeply cut and completely fractured. Two deep cut injuries 10 X 1.cm entering the cranial cavity from right ear to the middle of parietal regions across the injury 1.
3. Cut injury 4 X 3 X 3 cm over right ear ear lobe completely cut.
4. Deep cut injury 8 X 6 X entering the cranial cavity over left parietal region running to the occiput. Bone completely cut with skin plop with fractured bone ..
5. Cut injury 6 X 5 X 3 cm over right deltoid.
6. Abrasion 4 X 3 X 1/2 cm below right elbow back.
7. Right index finger completely amputated at the middle of proximal phalanx.
8. Deeper injury right hand from the bone of middle finger between thumb and the index finger extending to the bone of thumb 6 X 4 X4 cm.
9. Abrasion 3 X 2 X 1/2 cm left elbow 10. The amputated index finger right approximately with the left end of injury 7. He gave opinion that the death of both the deceased were due to cumulative effect of the injuries. Ex.P14 is the postmortem certificate in respect of D1 and Ex.P12 is the postmortem certificate in respect of D2.
10. Continuing the investigation, PW17, examined PWs1 to 8 and recorded their statements. He also recovered bloodstained earth and the sample earth from the place where D2's body was lying under a Mahazar Ex.P30. Thereafter, on 28.01.2002 at 2.30 p.m. PW17, arrested A3, 4 and 6 at Pudurpalayam division road bus stop in the presence of PW9 and another witness. On such arrest, the third accused made a confession voluntarily in the presence of some witnesses, in which he disclosed the place where he had hidden an aruval. Similarly, the fourth accused gave a confession voluntarily in the presence of the same witnesses, in which he disclosed the place, where he had hidden an aruval. Lastly, the sixth accused gave a confession voluntarily in the presence of the same witnesses, where he also disclosed where he had hidden an aruval. In pursuance of these three confessions, the respective accused took the police and other witnesses to the respective place and produced the weapons. They were all recovered under different mahazars.
11. The accuse”
2. and 5 surrendered before the Court. On an application made by PW17, to the learned Judicial Magistrate, police custody was ordered on 04.02.2002. Accordingly, he took the accused A1, A2 and A5 into his custody on 04.02.2002. In the police station at 6 p.m. in the presence of PW9 and another witness, the first accused gave a voluntarily confession in which he disclosed where he had hidden an aruval. Nextly, the second accused gave a voluntarily confession in which he disclosed where he had hidden an aruval. Lastly, the fifth accused gave a voluntarily confession in which he had disclosed where he had hidden an aruval. In pursuance of these confessions, the respective accused took the police and witnesses to the respective place and produced aruvals from the hide outs. PW17 recovered the same.
12. PW17, on returning to the police station again forwarded the accused to the Court and handed over all the material objects recovered to the Court. Then, he made a request to the Court to forward the material objects for chemical examinations. Ex.P44 is the chemical analysis report, wherein it is stated that no blood stain was detected on any of the four bill hooks forwarded for chemical analysis. Ex.46 is yet another report where it is stated that in three bill hooks human blood was found. PW17 collected the medical records including the treatment records pertaining to PW1 who was treated by PW10 at Government Hospital, Lalgudi. On completing the investigation, he laid charge sheet against all the accused.
13. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges as narrated in the earlier paragraph of the judgment. All the accused pleaded innocence and therefore, they were put on trial. During trial, on the side of prosecution as many as 18 witnesses were examined and 46 documents were exhibited besides 23 material objects.
14. Out of the above witnesses, PW1 and PW2 are eyewitnesses to the entire occurrence i.e. regarding the attack made on both the deceased as well as PW1. PW3 and PW4 are the witnesses, who have spoken only about a part of the occurrence i.e. in respect of the attack made on D2. PW3 and PW4 are the first and second wife respectively of D2. PWs5 to 9 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of prosecution in any manner. PW10, doctor Rajkumar has spoken to about the treatment given and the injuries found on PW1 and the treatment given to her. According to him, the injuries are simple in nature. PW16 has spoken to the fact that he registered a case and PW17 and PW18 have spoken to about the investigation done. Having considered the above materials, the trial Court found all these accused guilty as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgment and accordingly, punished them and that is how the appellants are before this Court with this appeal.
15. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and perused the records carefully.
16. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants would submit though PW1 happened to be an injured witness, she cannot be believed and conviction cannot be based on the evidence of PW1. According to him, in chief examination itself, she has stated that she did not know the names of A1 and A2. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that however, in Ex.P1(complaint), the names of A1 and A2 have been vividly mentioned. The learned Senior counsel would further submit that in chief examination itself, PW1 has wrongly identified the rest of the accused. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Ex.P1 would have come into being, only after due deliberation and the same cannot be given any weightage off.
17. The learned Senior Counsel would contend that PW3, during cross examination, has stated that immediately after the occurrence, by around 05.00 p.m. police arrived at the scene of occurrence, where a complaint was obtained from PW3 singed by both PWs3 and 4. whereas, according to the present case of prosecution, PW1 has gone to the police station at 7 p.m. and Ex.P1 came to be preferred. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the earliest information passed on to the police, which had brought the police to the place of occurrence as well as the complaint preferred by PW3, have been suppressed.
18. Nextly, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that PW1 has not mentioned about the presence of PWs2 to 4 at all in Ex.P1, instead she has mentioned about the presence of PWs 5 to 8. But PWs5 to 8 have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned hostile. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, presence of PWs2 to 4 itself is doubtful.
19. The learned Senior Counsel would nextly contend that there is no evidence let in through PWs1 to 4, in tune with the charges framed against the accused. It is the consistent case of the prosecution that all the 7 accused including the absconding accused were armed with aruvals. But curiously PWs1 and 2 have stated that some of the accused were armed with spear; few other were armed with Kuthukol and only the rest of the accused were armed with aruvals. It is the evidence of PWs1 and 2 that the accused who were possessing spear caused injuries to D1 and D2 by stabbing with spears. Only the rest of the accused caused injuries by cutting with aruval. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that this is not in tune with the charges framed against the accused. He would further point out that the evidence of PWs3 and 4 is quite contrary. According to them, all the 7 accused were armed with aruval. It is their further evidence that all the 7 accused indiscriminately cut the second deceased. No other act has been attributed to any of the accused subsequently. In other words, according to the learned Senior Counsel, evidence of PW3 and 4, is omnibus in nature and therefore, no weightage could be given. In respect of the recovery of the material objects, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that the aruvals which were subjected to chemical examinations were found with no bloodstain. Thus, there is no link between these weapons and the alleged crime.
20. Lastly, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that according to PW1, wife of A6 came to the house of PW1 and requested all the inmates to leave, since some people were coming there with deadly weapons, like Kuthukol and spear to attack. Despite the said warning, they did not leave the house. The wife of A6 has been examined as DW1. She has stated that some unidentifiable people were prepared to go to the house of D1 and they only attacked the deceased. The learned Senior Counsel would submit that though this witness was not examined by the prosecution, she has been examined on the side of the defence, who has very clearly stated so. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the assailants were really unknown and that is the reason why, PW1 could not identify any of the accused in Court. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, though it is a case of double murders, the prosecution has not proved the charges beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.
21. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would oppose this appeal stoutly. According to him, the distance between the place of occurrence and the police station is hardly 7 kms. PW1 has also sustained injuries in the occurrence. Immediately after the occurrence, she had gone to the police station and preferred Ex.P1 complaint at 07.00 p.m. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor there is no delay in preferring complaint. Similarly, the First Information Report and the complaint were received by the learned Magistrate at 9.30 p.m. itself. Thus, there is also no delay in forwarding the complaint to the Court. He would further submit prompt launching of First Information Report, to some extent guarantee the truth of the contents of the complaint. In the case on hand, since there is no delay in preferring the complaint, the case should be viewed with no suspicion.
22. The learned Additional public Prosecutor would nextly contend that the evidence of PW1 needs to be believed and accepted because she happens to be an injured eyewitness. Similarly, PW2 had accompanied PW1 all through and thus, she is also an eyewitness. PW3 and 4 had seen only a part of the occurrence and they being the wives of D2, were the natural witnesses. Though there are here and there certain contradictions, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, that would not in any manner cause harm to the case of the prosecution.
23. In respect of the arguments of the learned Senior counsel that though PW3 had admitted that the complaint was preferred by her at 5.00 p.m. the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that it is only an aberration in the evidence of PW3, which cannot be given any weightate at all. Thus, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, the prosecution has proved the case beyond all reasonable doubts and therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellants need not be interfered with.
24. When the learned Additional Public Prosecutor was requested to explain as to how he could support the judgment of the trial Court when the trial Court has not given any finding in respect of the charges under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 506(II) IPC and when the trial Court has not convicted the accused 2 to 6 in respect of the second count under Section 302 r/w 149 IPC, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has no explanation to offer. In respect of the infirmities in the charges also, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to explain. In respect of these defects, we may say that they could have been avoided by the trail Court.
25. Now let us consider the rival submissions made by the counsel on either side. The foremost contention of the learned Senior Counsel is that the original information passed on to the police has been suppressed. A perusal of the cross examination of PW3 would go to show that at 5.00 p.m. the Sub Inspector of Police arrived at on the scene of occurrence. As we have already pointed out the distance between the police station and the place of occurrence hardly 7 km. Therefore, it is possible for the police to have come to the place of occurrence at 5 p.m. The information which was passed to the police, which in turn made police to rush into the place of occurrence is the earliest information and the same has been suppressed. Assuming that the said information is only a cryptic information, there is the evidence of PW3, wherein she has stated that at 05.00 p.m. a complaint was obtained from her and PW4 also signed the same. At least this is the earliest information in respect of the occurrence giving all the details of the occurrence. This complaint has also been suppressed. Now, it is stated that at 07.00 p.m. PW1 had gone to the police station to prefer the complaint. In between there is a gap of 3 hours. What PW1 was doing during the said interregnum period without going go to the police station to prefer a complaint has not been explained. The delay between 4.00 p.m. and 7.00 p.m., though is minimal, still it is difficult to believe that the Ex.P1 is the earliest information, in view of the evidence of PW3, wherein she has stated that at 5 p.m. the police arrived at the place of occurrence and obtained a complaint. It needs to be mentioned that even PW1 has also admitted that the police arrived at the place of occurrence at 5 p.m. itself. In a case where there are number of accused and there is admittedly enmity between two groups, the Courts do expect unblemished earliest information to the police. If there is a delay or if there is suspicion of any deliberation or manipulation, then the entire case should be approached with suspicion.
26. Keeping in view the above legal position, let us now turn to the evidence of PW1 and PW2. As we have already pointed out, it is the consistent case of the prosecution that all the 7 accused including the absconding accused were armed with aruvals and they attacked both the deceased with aruval. The medical evidence also would go to show that all the injuries are cut injuries and not even a single stab injury was found on the body of D1. The evidence of PW1 and PW 2 is that some accused armed with spear and some were armed with Kuthukol, which are all stabbing instruments. Only the rest were armed with aruvals. The positive evidence of PWs1 and 2 is that the accused who were armed with spears and other accused who were armed with Kuthukol stabbed the deceased. This is not in tune with the charges framed. It is also not in tune with the medical evidence. The Doctor who conducted autposy on the body of D1 has not found any stab injury on the body of D1. According to the doctor, all the injuries found on D1 could have been caused by cut with aruvals. Thus, the evidence of PWs1 and 2 are not only contradictory to the medical evidence, but also contrary to the prosecution case itself.
27. Now, turning to the evidence of PWs3 and 4, their presence has not been mentioned in ExP1. To the contrary, the presence of PWs5 to 8 has been mentioned. But, PWs5 to 8 have turned hostile. Had it been true that PWs3 and 4 were present at the time of occurrence and witnessed the occurrence, certainly PW1 would have mentioned the names of Pws.3 and 4 in Ex.P1. The absence of the same creates initial suspicion about the presence of PWs3 and 4. PWs.3 and 4 have stated in one line that all the accused came and attacked D2 with aruval. The evidence of PWs3 and 4 are quite contrary to the evidence of PWs1 and 2, wherein PWs1 and 2 have stated that some of the accused were armed with Kuthokol and spear. Thus, there are two sets of evidences let in by prosecution.
28. Now coming to the defence witness DW1, who is the wife of A6, it was she who came to the house of D1 and requested the inmates to leave the house as some unidentifiable persons were coming towards their house armed with Kuthukol and spear. She has stated that the assailants were unknown persons. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, it may be because of this, PW1 could not identify the accused in Court. In Ex.P1 the names of all the accused have been vividly described. PW1 would tacitly admit even in chief examination that she did not know the names of A1 and A2. Thus, it is not explained to the Court, as to how the names of A1 and A2 came to be mentioned in Ex.P1. Similarly, in Court she was not able to identify all the other accused correctly. As a matter of fact, she identified the accused wrongly. This also would go to show that Ex.P1 is a concocted document.
29. Having a cumulative appreciation of the entire materials, we find that all is not well with the prosecution. As we have pointed out earlier, the original information in respect of the occurrence has been suppressed. Ex.P1 cannot carry any weightage because it has been come into being after deliberation. The evidence of PWs1 and 2 are quite contrary to the prosecution case itself. The evidence of PWs3 and 4 is contrary to the evidence of PWs1 and PW2. The medical evidence also does not support fully the evidence of PWs1 and 2. Thus, there are lot of doubts in the case of the prosecution and these doubts have not been cleared by the prosecution. The benefit of these doubts should go in favour of the accused. For the reasons stated above, though it is a case of double murders, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the accused.
30. Before parting with the judgment, we would like to make the following observations. As we have already pointed out the trail Court had not framed charges properly. It is the case of the prosecution that all the seven accused were armed with deadly weapons namely aruvals. Rightly there is a charge under Section 148 IPC against the accused. It is not known as to how the trial Court could frame charge against all the accused under Section 147 IPC. The fifth charge is under Section 302 r/w 149 (2 counts). It is the positive case of the prosecution that all the accused attacked D1 and D2 with deadly weapons. It is the evidence also as we have already narrated. But, it is not known as to how the lower Court could hold that the first accused alone is responsible for the death of both the deceased so as to convict him under Section 302 IPC (2 counts). The charge in respect of both the deceased as against A2 to A6 is 302 r/w 149 IPC (2) counts. But without convicting the accused 2 to 6 by invoking Section 149 IPC, strangely and illegally the trial Court has convicted them by invoking Section 109 IPC. We do not understand as to how the trial Court could invoke Section 109 IPC in the facts and circumstances of the present case. As we have already pointed out, the trial Court has convicted the accused 2 to 6 only for single count that is in respect of the death of one single deceased. The judgment does not disclose as to whether the accused 2 to 6 were convicted in respect of D1 or D2. Assuming that the conviction for these accused is in respect of D1, it is not known as to why the Trial Court has not convicted the accused 2 to 6 in respect of D2. As we have pointed out, the accused 2 to 6 have been convicted for offence under Section 302 r/w 109 for single count. The trial Court has not all given any finding as to whether the accused have been either acquitted for the second count under Section 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC. The trial Court has also not given any finding as to whether the accused have been acquitted under Sections 147, 324, 341 and 506(ii) IPC. We point out these short comings only on the hope that these kind of flaws may not be allowed by the trial Courts in future.
31. In view of the above, we find that the accused are entitled for acquittal. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court not I, Tiruchirapalli, in S.C.No.45 of 2005, dated 29.11.2005 are set aside and the appellants are acquitted from the charges. The Bail bond executed by the appellants shall stand cancelled. jikr To 1.The Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC not I, Tiruchirapalli. 2.The Inspector of Police Kallakudi Police Station, Thiruchirappalli District. 3.The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.