AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Balasubramanian, J.—Appellants in this appeal are accused Nos. 3 to 5 in SC. No. 87/93 on the file of Court of Sessions. Madurai. For convenience sake, we will refer to the Appellants in this appeal in the very same rank in which they were arrayed before the Court of Sessions. Though several charges were, framed about which we will refer little later in this judgment. A3 and A4 were convicted for an offence u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to under go life imprisonment while A5 was convicted for an offence u/s 323 IPC (3 counts). Eighteen days of imprisonment as a remand prisoner was taken into account by the learned Sessions Judge while imposing the sentence on A5 and accordingly, it was concluded that the period already undergone by A5 would meet the ends of justice. Heard Mr. T. Sudanthiram learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr. S. Jayakumar learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.
The following are the charges framed against the accused:
Section 147 IPC::A1 to A3, A5 and A6
Section 148 IPC:: A4
Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC:: Al and A2
Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC:: A3 to A6
Section 323 IPC (3 counts):: A5 Section 323 IPC:: A6
Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC (3 counts):: A1 to A4 and A6
Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC:: Al to A3
Section 324 IPC:: A4
Section 324 read with Section 149 IPC:: Al to A3, A5 and A6
As already stated, the conviction was only u/s 302 read with Section 34 IPC (A3 and A4) and Section 323 IPC (A5). All the accused were acquitted in respect of the rest of the offences. The judgment of the learned Sessions Judge acquitting the accused in respect of the offences referred to earlier had become final since the State had not filed any appeal against it.
The following is the sum and substance of the prosecution case:
A1 is the father of A2, A3, A4 and A6 are brothers among themselves. A5 is their friend. All the accused are residents of Mangulam. A2 is a lawyer by profession at Madras. PW 1 is the nephew of PW 3. PW 9 is related to them. PW 5 is the brother of PW 10. The deceased in this case is a male by name Mahendran. PW 6 is his brother. PW 7 contested in the Co-operative Society Election with the help of PW 10 and he lost in that selection PWs 2, 4 and 8 are associates of PW 10. PW 9 had been a Special Officer of the Dairy Farm at Mangulam. PW 9 and the deceased belong to the political party called Dravida Kazhagam. There was an election in the year 1990 to the Agricultural Co-operative Society at Mangulam. A4 contested for the post of president opposed by PW 10, at the instance of the deceased. PW 10. was assisted by PW 8 and others in that election. A4 won that election. Then the election to the Mangulam Dairy Farm was announced. Again, at the instance of the deceased. PW 9 contested. Thinking that the chances of PW 9 winning that election are very high, the accused group gave a petition to the Election Officer to postpone the election and accordingly, the election was postponed. This resulted in strained relationship between the accused and the witnesses.
The occurrence was on 24.2.91. At 7 a.m. on that day, PW 1 was going on die road leading to the Dairy Farm. PW 4, who is the son of PW 8 came in a motor-cycle at that time and opposite to the house of A1 and A2, there was a quarrel between them and PW 4 regarding a land dispute, PW 4, with the spanner in the motor-cycle tool box, attacked A1 and A2.P Ws 1, 3, 5, 8 and the deceased separated them. A2 ran towards east and brought A3 to A6 and another person, by name Manimurugan (since deceased), A3, A5 and A6 were each armed with a stick while A4 and Manimurugan (since deceased) were armed with knives in their hands. Al and A2 pointing out the deceased declared that it was he who worked against them in the society election; he had brought shame and disrespect to them; none had contested against them in the election and therefore, he must be stabbed and finished off. Immediately, A3 and A4, each caught hold of one hand of the deceased and accused Manmurugan (since deceased) with a knife, caused stab injuries on the left side chest and head of the deceased. A5 attacked PW 1 on his head and PW 5 on his left temporal region and head with the stick in his hand. He also attacked PW 3 on his left flank with his stick. A6 attacked PW 6 on his head and back. PWs 6, 7 and two others separated them. All the injured including the deceased were boarded in a town bus and sent to the Government Headquarters Hospital at Madurai. The Medical Officer, on examining the deceased in this case, pronounced him dead. PW 1 appeared before PW 19, the Sub-Inspector of Police at 9.15 a.m. on that day and gave a complaint, which stands exhibited as Ex.P1. Ex.P1 was registered in Crime No. 53/91. Ex.P21 is the printed First Information Report. He sent the material records to the Court as well as to the higher officials through PW 17. Even before registering Ex. P1, A1 and A2 appeared before PW 19 at 8.45 am. on that day and A1 gave a complaint. PW 19 registered that complaint in Crime No. 52/91. Ex.P 20 is the printed First Information Report for that. He sent Al, A2 and A5 to the hospital for treatment along with a medical memo.
PW 14 is the Medical Officer on duty at the Government Hospital at Madurai. He examined PW 3 at 8.15 a.m. on 24.2.91 and found various symptoms on him as noted in Ex.P7, the Accident Register. The injuries were simple in nature. At 8 a.m., he examined PW 5 and found various symptoms on him as noted in Ex.P8, the Accident Register. The injuries were simple in nature. At 8.30 a.m., he examined PW 2 and found the symptom as noted in Ex.P9. the Accident Register. The injury was simple in nature. He examined PW 1 at 1 p.m. on that day and found the symptom as noted in Ex.P10, the Accident Register. At 9.30 a.m., he examined A1 and found various symptoms on him as noted in Ex. P 11, the Accident Register. The injuries were simple in nature. At 9.45 a.m., he examined A2 and found on him, the symptoms as noted in Ex. P12, the Accident Register. The injuries were simple in nature. At 8.45 am., he examined A5 and found symptoms on him as noted in Ex. P13, the Accident Register. The injuries were simple in nature. (Since Exs.P7 to P13 are in English, we do not propose to restate the symptoms as found therein once again in this judgment to save time).
PW 20 is the Investigating Officer. On receipt of Exs. P20 and P21, he commenced investigation in both the crimes simultaneously. He reached the scene of occurrence and prepared Ex. P22 Observation Mahazar and Ex.P23-rough sketch in the presence of witnesses. At 10 am., from the scene of occurrence, he recovered M0 14-blood stained earth and MO 15-sample earth under Ex.P24 attested by PWs 11 and 12. At 10.30 a.m., he conducted inquest over the dead body of Mahendran in the presence of panchayatdhars and witnesses. Ex.P25 is the inquest report. He sent the dead body to the hospital for postmortem through PW 18, the police constable. Ex.P 14 is the requisition for postmortem.
PW 15, on receipt of Ex.P 14 and the dead body commenced postmortem 1.50 p.m. on that day. He found various symptoms as noted in Ex.P15, the postmortem certificate. The Doctor is of the opinion that the deceased would appear to have died of external wound No. 2 and its corresponding internal injury. External wound No. 2 would instantaneously cause death and it should have been caused by a weapon having sharp edges on both sides. After postmortem, the accompanying police constable recovered MOs. 11 to 13 from the dead body and handed over the same at the Police Station along with his special report. PW 20, around 2 p.m. on that day, recovered M Os. 1 and 2 from PW 3, who was in the hospital under Ex. P3 attested by PW 13 and another. He also recovered M Os. 3 to 5 from PW 5 under Ex. P4. From A5, he recovered M Os. 6 and 7 under Ex.P5. MOs. 8 and 9 from A1 and MO 10 from A2 came to be recovered under Ex.P6. A1, A2 and A5 were arrested and sent for judicial remand. He came to know that A4 and A6 had surrendered in Court. The case properties were sent to the Court with the requisition Ex.P16 to subject the same for chemical examination. PW 16 is the Magisterial Clerk, who on receipt of Ex. P16, sent the case properties to the laboratory as an enclosure to Court''s letter Ex.P17. Exs.P18 and P19 are Chemical Examiner''s Report and Serologists Report respectively. In the meanwhile, PW 20 was transferred and PW 21. who succeeded him verified die investigation already done. He referred the complaint given by A1 and registered in Crime No. 52/91 as a mistake of fact. After completing investigation, he filed the final report against the accused in Court on 6.12.91.
When the accused were questioned u/s 313 Code of Criminal Procedure on the basis of the incriminating materials made available against them, they denied each and every circumstance put up against them, as false and contrary to facts. They contended that on A1 and A2 being attacked by PW 4, they went to the investigating Police Station to lodge a complaint. They did not know what happened thereafter. They would state that the witnesses are speaking falsehood. A3 to A6 would state that they have been falsely implicated in this case on account of their side winning the election. Two witnesses were examined on the side of the defense as DWs 1 and 2, through whom five exhibits had come to be marked. The First Information Report for Crime Nos. 47/91, 48/91 and 49/91 on the file of the investigating Police Station had been marked as Ex.D2; the First Information Report for Crime Nos. 50/91 and 51/91 on the file of the investigating Police Station are Exs.D3 and D4. The Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Melur had been examined as DW1 to prove the above mentioned exhibits. The information Report for Crime Nos. 142/91 and 143/91 on the file of the Madhichiyam Police Station had been exhibited as Ex.D5 through DW2, the Head Clerk of the Court of the Judicial Magistrate No,VIII (Mobile Court). Ex. D1 is the history of the case given by PW 20 along with the requisition for postmortem to PW 15.
Mr. T. Sudanthiram, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants took us through the entire judgment of the learned Trial Judge and contended that the learned Sessions Judge had disbelieved every aspect of the prosecution case except holding A3 to A5 alone guilty for the offence referred to earlier. The truth and falsity are inextricably mixed up as one piece of evidence and it is not possible to remove the chaff from the grain. Inasmuch as the learned Sessions Judge had disbelieved the entire case of the prosecution including disbelieving the presence of A1, A2 and A6 at the spot for acquitting the Appellants also the conviction of the Appellants alone is bad in law. We have been taken through the discussion conclusions and findings arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge for acquitting the rest of the accused in respect of all the other offences. The learned Counsel would also contend that Ex.P21 is shown to be a fabricated FIR and therefore, Ex.P21 should be totally discarded. If that is so, then the whole case of the prosecution falls to the ground, is the argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants. We heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all these points.
In the context of the rival contentions made by the learned Counsel on either side, we perused the entire materials with utmost care and caution. The defense had definitely established that there was a serious enmity between them on the one hand and the prosecution witnesses on the other hand. The enmity was in the backdrop of the prosecution party losing in the election to the Co-operative Society and the other election in which PW 9 was to contest was postponed at the instance of the accused.
The prosecution witnesses themselves state that there was a land dispute between A1 and A2 on the one hand and the family of PW 8 on the other hand. PW 8 is the brother of A1 and PW 4 is the son of PW 8 A2 is the son of A1.
Therefore, it is clear that there were two groups in the village and those two groups were headed by the members of the same family. It may be true that PWs 1, 3 and 5 are injured eye-witnesses. Further, it may be noted here that PWs 2, 4, 8, 11 and 12 turned hostile. We are fully aware that simply because some of the witnesses turned hostile, it does not necessarily mean that the evidence of the eye-witnesses should be disbelieved. We also perused the oral evidence of PWs 2, 4, 8, 11 and 12 before they came to be treated as hostile. From the evidence so recorded, we are unable to find any material in favour of the State. Therefore, even at this stage, we conclude that the evidence of these hostile witnesses is of no use at all to decide the truth or otherwise of the prosecution case.
This means that we have the oral evidence of other witnesses. PWs 1, 3 and 5 claim to be injured eye-witnesses while PWs 6 and 7 had been examined as eye-witnesses PWs 9 and 10 were examined to speak about the motive and they were not eye-witnesses to the occurrence. PW 13 witnessed the recovery of material objects while PW ! $ is the Doctor who saw the injured witnesses as well as the accused. PW 15 is the Doctor who did the postmortem. PW 16 is the Magisterial Clerk while PW 17 is the police constable, who carried the First Information Report to the Court. PW 18 is the constable, who accompanied the dead body for postmortem while PWs 18 to 21 are Sub-Inspector and Inspectors of Police respectively. Therefore, at the risk of repetition, we reiterate that we have only the oral evidence of PWs 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 to decide the case of the prosecution.
The prime argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellants is that Ex.P 1 with the printed First Information Report Ex 21 is fabricated document. The consistent case of the prosecution spoken to by PWs 1, 3, 5, and 6 is that all the injured eye-witnesses as well as other victims and the deceased had gone to the hospital straight from the place of occurrence: on reaching die hospital, Mahendran was pronounced dead and therefore, PW 1 straightaway went to the investigating Police Station to give a complaint. The investigating Police Station is called Othakadai Police Station. PW 19 is the Sub-Inspector of the Police of the investigating Police Station who had stated that PW 1 appeared before him at 9.15 a.m. on 24.2.91 and gave a complaint which was registered as Ex P1 in Crime No 53/91 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324 and 302 IPC. He also stated that he prepared the printed First Information Report for that complaint and it is Ex.P 21. If there had been no doubt in the version of the witnesses as referred to above, then everything would have gone good for the prosecution. In this context, it may be noticed that PW 19 had admitted that at 8.45.a.m. on 24.2.91, A1 and A2 appeared before him and A1 gave a complaint which was registered in Crime No. 52/91 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 336 and 307 IPC. Ex.P 20 is die printed First Information Report. Therefore, from the admission of PW 19, it is clear that the complaint given by Al had come to the registered prior in point of time to the complaint given by PW 1, the registering of the two complaints hardly separate by half-an-hour and therefore, it is clear that there was no other complaint in between these two complaints.
DW 1 is the Magisterial Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court at Melur and the investigating Police Station comes within the jurisdiction of that Court. Through him. Exs. D2 to D4 had come to be marked. Ex. D2 shows that on the file of the investigating Police Station. Crime Nos. 47/91. 48/91, and 49/91 had come to be registered in one form and the printed First Information Report has the Form No. 886288. This had come to be registered at 6 a.m. on 22.2.91. Ex. D3 relates to the complaint registered at 10 a.m. on 20.2.91 on the file of the same investigating Police Station in Crime No. 50/91 Ex. D4 is another complaint on the file of the very same investigating Police Station in Crime No. 51/91 in respect of an occurrence at 5 p.m. on 22.2.91 and it shows the FIR Serial No. as 886290. Therefore, it is clear that Exs. D2 to D4 are on the file of the investigating Police Station itself and the serial numbers are in ascending order. Ex.P.20 is the Printed First Information Report for the complaint given by Al at 8.45 a.m. on 24.2.91 in the investigating Police Station. It bears the FIR Form No. as 886291- against in the ascending order from the serial number found in Ex. D4. On the above factual position and in view of the admitted fact that Ex.P21, the printed First Information Report for Ex. Pl had come to be registered half-an-hour after the registration of Ex.P20 on the file of the investigating Police Station, It should have only next ascending number in the FIR form, namely 886292. We have already found that between Exs. P20 and P21, the prosecution had not shown that any other complaint was received in the investigating Police Station. The prosecution had not let in any evidence to show that the FIR book was fully exhausted after the preparation of the First Information Report, Ex.P20 and a new FIR book had been taken for preparing Ex. P21.
DW2 is the Head Clerk of Judicial Magistrate No. VIII, Madurai (Mobile Court). His evidence would show that Madhichiyam Police Station is within the jurisdiction of that Magistrate. Through this witness, Ex. D5 had come to be marked. Ex. D5 is the printed First Information Report in respect of Crime Nos. 142/91 and 143/91 on the file of the Madichiyam Police Station. The incident in respect of that complaint is shown to have taken place at 3.15 p.m. on 22.2.91. The printed First Information Report form number for Ex. D 5 is 467444 and Ex. D5 had come to be registered at 4.15 p.m. on 22.2.91. The Madichiyam Police Station is not the investigating Police Station Ex.P 21 is the printed First Information Report prepared on the basis of Ex. P1 concerning the present sessions case. The serial number for the printed FIR Ex. P21 is 467451. We are really at a loss to understand as to how Ex. P21, the First Information Report in the sessions case could have a form number which is not ascending in number to the number found in Ex. P20. There is no material on record to show as to why the FIR book available in the investigating Police Station had not come to be utilized. The case of the prosecution is that PW 1 went to the Police Station and lodged a complaint - Ex. P1. If that was the position, the FIR book available in the Police Station should have been utilized in preparing the printed First Information Report, but it is not shown to have been done. At the risk of repetition, we state once again that the investigating agency had not placed any explanation at all as to the presence of a totally different First Information Report form number in Ex. P21 when compared to the number found in Ex. P20. The learned Sessions Judge applying his mind to these materials was inclined to hold that there is some suspicion in the recording of Ex. PI and the preparation of Ex. P21, namely whether it was done at the time and in the manner alleged in the investigating Police Station. It is seen from the records that both Exs.P20 and P21 had reached the Court around 10.30. a.m. on 24.2.91. But from that mere fact, in the absence of any explanation from the investigating agency, on the lines indicated above, it cannot be held that Exs.P1 and P21 are free from doubt.
The consistent case of the prosecution is that around 7 am. on 24.2.91. PW 4 came in his motor-cycle and opposite to the house of A1 and A2, a quarrel took place in which A1 and A2 on the one hand and PW 4 were involved. In that quarrel, PW 4, taking the spanner available in the motor-cycle tool box, caused bleeding injuries on the heads of A1 and A2 and the quarrelling people were separated by PWs 1, 3, 5, 8 and the deceased. It is their further case that A2, there after ran towards east and brought A3 to A6 for support and by that time, the prosecution group and the accused group were opposite to the Dairy Farm. Ex. P23 is the plan and it shows that the house of A1 and the Dairy Farm are in close proximity to each other. The submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellants that the two places are separated only by a distances of 60 feet is not even disputed by the investigating agency. On such assembling by the two groups, opposite to the Dairy Farm, the case of the prosecution is that A1 and A2, pointing out the deceased, in instigated the other accused to finish him off and thus the deceased came to be fatally attacked. A perusal of Ex. P1 does not show that the place where A1 and A2 were attacked by PW 4 is different from the place where the other witnesses were injured and the deceased was done to death. There is no mention in Ex. P1 that after receiving the injury. A2 ran towards east and bought A3 to A6 to support him. Going by the omissions, on the lines indicated above, as found in Ex. P1, the learned Sessions Judge disbelieved the oral evidence of PWs 1, 3, 5 to 7 that the deceased came to be attacked opposite to the Dairy Farm after A2 went and came back with support. The learned Session Judge went further to hold, by taking into account the recovery of MOs 14 and 15 under Ex.P24 the observation Mahazar Ex. P22 and plan Ex. P24, that the occurrence as stated in Ex.P1 would have taken place only opposite to die Dairy Farm. Ex. D1 is the history of the case as given by PW 20 to PW 15, the Medical Officer and it was sent along with the requisition for postmortem. In Ex. D1, it is found stated that when Al and A2 sustained bleeding injuries on their heads at the hand of PW 4, PW 1 intervened and separated and in that melee, PW 1 has sustained an injury. But the oral evidence of PW 1 before Court is that he came to sustain the injuries in the later incident in which the deceased was fatally attacked. We cross-checked the conclusions and findings arrived at by the learned Session Judge in that regard with the materials available on record and we do not find that the learned Session Judge had committed any error in holding so. If that is so, it is clear to our mind that the injured accused: the injured witnesses and deceased would have come to clash only in the incident opposite to the Dairy Farm and not in piecemeal in two different places.
Repeatedly, the learned Session Judge had characterized the evidence of PWs 1, 3, 5 and 10 as partisan witnesses and their evidence before Court makes it very clear that they were bent upon implication all in the opposite camp. By analyzing the entire maternal on record, the learned Session Judge, by giving valid reasons, came to the conclusion that there was absolutely no enmity between Al and A2 on the one hand and the deceased on the other hand and if at all. they should be against anybody, then they should be only against PWs 4 and 8 as PW 4 has caused bleeding injuries on Al and A2 on account of a land dispute. Therefore, in the absence of any acceptable maternal to the conclude that A1and A2 were inimically disposed of towards the deceased, we do not find fault with the learned Session Judge when he held that the evidence of PWs 1, 3 and 5 that the deceased was the target in the mind of A1 and A2 appears to be very flimsy and not reliable.
The contradiction in the oral evidence of PWs. 1, 3, 5 to 7 as to what they had actually'' stated when were examined during investigation had been elicited when PW 20. the investigating officer was in the witness box. It appears that the above named witnesses had not told the Investigating Officer that A1 and A2 induced the other accused by describing the deceased by his community and then stated that he must be finished off. As already noticed, A4 had won the Agricultural Co-operative Society Election. No other election is shown to have been held in which the accused party had lost. In the context, the word spoken by A1 and A2 that because of the role played by the deceased in die election, disrespect was brought to diem, does not fit in the context of the case. If the accused had lost in any of the elections a result of the involvement of the deceased in this case in favour of the opposite group, then one can reasonably understand the words uttered by A1 and A2 as the normal words which they could have spoken at the time. The learned Session Judge had also found on the materials placed on record that they do not indicate that A1 and A2 had ever involved themselves either in the Agricultural Co-operative Society Election already held or in the proposed election for the Dairy Farm The learned Session Judge had gone to the extent of disbelieving the very presence of A1, A2 and A6 at the scene of occurrence and therefore, proceeded to hold that the prosecution case of abetment against A1 and A2 had not been made out. We cross checked these conclusion with records of this issue and we are in entire agreement with the conclusion of the learned Session Judge.
The investigating officer has categorically admitted that on account of the election dispute between the two groups, he had not examined anyone outside the two factions. In our considered opinion, the Investigating Officer would have done better if he had examined at least one person, who is totally unconnected with the two groups especially, when the occurrence had taken place in a public road. It may be true that PWs. 1, 3, 5, 6 and 7 had consistently stated that A3 and A4, each caught hold of one hand of the deceased and the accused Manimurugan (since deceased) fatally stabbed on the chest and head of the deceased. But. in view of several suspicious circumstances starting from the truth of Ex PI, we evaluated the oral evidence of these witnesses to find out whether they pass the test of reliability As already stated, we are in entire agreement with the finding of the learned Sessions Judge that the witnesses projected by the prosecution are partisan witnesses and they appear to be very keen to implicate everyone in the opposite camp in the crime. Under these circumstances, caution should be in the mind of the Court, as held by the Apex Court as well as by this Court in so many judgment, while evaluating the evidence of such witnesses. We are unable to remove the chaff from the grain from the evidence of these witnesses. When their evidence had been disbelieved to acquit A1, A2, and A6, we do not find any compelling circumstance or substantial material in their evidence which could be carved out to be used against A3 to A5. The presence of A6 at the scene of occurrence had been rightly doubted be the learned Session Judge. In Ex. PI, his name is not found mentioned as an eye-witness. If the evidence of PW 6 is true, then his clothes would have definitely become bloodstained. When the Investigation Officer had taken much care to recover the blood-stained clothes of PWs 3 and 5, nothing had been recovered from PW 6. PW 6''s evidence is that after his brother was fatally attacked, he put him on his lap and inasmuch as the deceased had sustained profusely bleeding injuries, the clothes of PW 6 would not have escaped from becoming blood-stained.
The learned Session Judge acquitted A3 to A6 of the offence u/s 302 read with Section 149 IPC. This means that the assembly did not have any common object. There is a very subtle distinction between common object and common intention. On the totality of the materials noted earlier in the judgment, we have a grave doubt in our mind as to whether the accused could have had any common intention also among themselves. The averment in Ex. P1 is that on A1 and A2 sustaining bleeding injuries at the hands of PW 4, A3 with a stick, A4 with a knife, A6 with a stick, the accused Manimurugan (since deceased) with a knife and A5 with a stick came. Therefore, the prosecution case is that A4 was armed with a knife. If really, his intention had been to kill the deceased, he could have very easily used the weapon in his hand to inflict the injuries on the deceased. But, he has not done so. Likewise, A3 was also armed with a stick and if he had an intention to kill the deceased, he could have used the stick in causing injuries on the body of the deceased. But, he also had not been shown to have acted in such a manner. These materials definitely weigh with us in concluding prima facie that die prosecution had not established that A3 and A4 had shared the common intention with the accused Manimurugan (since deceased).
If the common object or common intention is not established, then each accused must be held guilty only for their individual overacts. The fatal attack is shown to have been given only by accused Manimurugan (Since deceased). In the contest of conclusion that even common intention had not been established and in the background of the finding of the learned Trial Judge that common object also had not been established, we tried to find out whether the convicted accused, namely A3 to A5 could be found guilty for their individual overacts. It may be true that there are injured eye-witnesses. However, in view of the partisan nature of the witnesses and the serious enmity as brought out on record, we are of considered opinion that it would be very unsafe to rely upon the oral evidence of those witnesses to hold A3 and A5 guilty for their individual acts. There is an element of doubt running through the entire thread of the prosecution case which has been persisting in our mind right from the beginning. Therefore, we are inclined to give the benefit of doubt to the accused.
In the light of our discussion, giving the benefit of doubt to the accused the Appellants in the appeal, we acquit them of the offence for which they were found guilty. Accordingly, the judgment under challenge is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused shall stand terminated forthwith.