JUDGMENT

DESAI, J.:— These three appeals arise out of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in Criminal Appeal No. 295 of 1970 convicting 27 appellants for different offences who were acquitted of all charges levelled against them by the learned Sessions Judge, Chingleput Division in Sessions Case No. 25 of 1969 in which 28 persons were put up for trial for various offences including the one under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. against accused Nos. 1 to 10, 16, 17, 19 and 20, and under S. 302 read with S. 149, I.P.C. against rest of the accused and 3 other charges for specific offences under Ss. 323, 324, 325 read with S. 149 and S. 427 read with S. 34, I.P.C. The learned Sessions judge entertained a reasonable doubt about the veracity of the prosecution evidence and giving benefit of doubt, rejected the prosecution case in its entirety and acquitted all the accused. The State of Tamil Nadu preferred an appeal to the High Court of Madras against original accused Nos. 1 to 27. No appeal was preferred against the acquittal of original accused No. 28 and it has become final. The High Court practically accepted the entire prosecution case and convicted accused Nos. 1 to 27, i.e. all the accused in respect of whom the State had preferred an appeal, and sentenced them to varying terms of imprisonment on different counts. Original accused Nos. 1-7 and 19 were convicted amongst others, for an offence under s. 302 read with S. 34 of the I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. These 8 accused preferred Criminal Appeal No. 230 of 1972 under S. 2 (a) of the SC (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1971. Original accused Nos. 8 to 18 and 20 to 27 applied for and obtained special leave in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 1972. Original accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 19 were also convicted for various other offences and in respect of their convictions for offences other than the one under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C., they applied for and obtained special leave in Criminal Appeal No. 97 of 1973. Thus, these three appeals arise from the same judgment and accordingly were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. A curious feature of this case which has caused us not inconsiderable anxiety is that in all 28 persons were challenged before the learned Sessions Judge who framed charges against the accused under 39 different heads. The prosecution in all examined 34 witnesses including prosecution witnesses Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 and 13 who are alleged to have suffered injuries at the scene of occurrence and in all probability in the course, of the occcurrence, and yet the learned Sessions Judge was not impressed by the evidence of any of these witnesses and rejected the entire prosecution case as unworthy of belief and acquitted all the accused. When the matter was taken to the High Court by the State against all accused, except the last, the High Court was of the opinion that the appreciation of evidence by the learned Sessions Judge has been "so unreasonable that the evidence given by the witnesses was discarded only on the ground that it is the evidence of partisan witnesses and the judgment of the trial court is vitiated by incoherent and heterogeneous medley of confused thinking, clarity and cogency being foreign to the judgment of the trial Court". With this cryptic observation the High Court accepted almost the entire prosecution case except where a concession was made by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and convicted all the appellants, viz., original accused Nos. 1 to 27 for various offences. Accused Nos. 1 to 7 and 19 were convicted for an offence under S. 302 read with S. 34, I.P.C. and each of them was sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Accused Nos. 1, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, to 15, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26 and 27 were convicted for an offence under S. 147, I.P.C. and the remaining accused were convicted for an offence under S.