IMPORTANT POINT
It would be open to the Court to convict an accused even if evidence has been found to be deficient, or to be not wholly credible.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. —

1.Leave granted.

2.Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court dismissing the appeal field by the appellants who were convicted for offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’). The 8th accused was acquitted of the charges under Sections 148 and 302 IPC. Of the seven accused persons who were convicted by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, two separate appeals were filed.

3.Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

PW-1 who is Murugammal the mother of the Prabha (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’) has stated that her second son Babu had already been murdered by the accused in this case namely Ali, Cheyya Babu, Udattumani, Muthukumar, Jayaraman, Karikadi Moideen and others and that on 8.3.2001 at 11.00 P.M in the night all the aforesaid accused armed with knife came to her house and with the intention to murder her son Prabha, threatened him and that later on 9.3.2001 at 5.30 a.m. in the morning all the accused in this case armed with knives came to her house and that on seeing them she sent away her son Prabha from the house and that the accused had chased him and that she also followed them along with her daughter-in-law. After crossing DH Road and Mutha Tamil Nagar, they ran for some distance and that at that spot the accused Ali and Udattumani attacked her son Prabha with knives and inflicted out injuries on his head, and the accused Cheyya, Muthukumar, Kovil Babu, Jayaraman and Karikattai Moideen inflicted out injuries on the neck, shoulder, hands, legs and several parts of the body indiscriminately, and the accused logu caught Prabha by the legs. Thereafter of the accused together ran away from there and that her son was lying in the pool of blood and succumbed to his injuries and that later, she and her daughter-in-law went to Kodunkaiyoor Police Station and lodged the complaint Ex.P-1. The knives exhibited in this Court were used by the accused to murder her son and the said 7 knives were marked as the M.O.1 series.

As per the chargesheet filed by the SHO of P-6 Kodunkaiyoor Police Station, Chennai, against the accused, the deceased Prabha was residing within the limits of the Kodungayoor Police Station, and that the accused were also residing in the same area. The accused had previous enmity due to which they had murdered Babu, the brother of Prabha, and that the family members of the deceased were being threatened by the accused and that they also proposed to murder the deceased and due to this reason, all the accused with the common intention of committing the murder of Prabha, formed an unlawful assembles and armed with dangerous weapons like knife sword etc. on 9.3.2001 at 5.30 p.m stealthily entered the house of Prabha at 10 Netaji Lane, Nehru Nagar, Kodunkaiyoor, knowing that Prabha was present. On seeing them, Prabha escaped through the temple side, and all the accused chased Prabha, and entered the compound of Sekhar’s house situated near the tea stall situated nearly, and indiscriminately attacked Prabha and caused injuries with the knife on the head, neck, face, chest, shoulder, hands and legs of Prabha. Due to the said injuries, Prabha died at the spot, and, therefore, it was stated that the accused are guilty for offences under Sections 147, 148 read with Section 302 IPC. When the accused were produced before the X Judicial Magistrate, all the copies of the documents relating to the case were handed to them free of charge. The matter was then committed to the Court of the Sessions Judge.

After hearing the arguments from both sides and considering the documents and evidence, the accused were charged under Section 148 read with Section 302 IPC and on being questioned the accused pleaded not guilty and demanded trial.

To establish the charge against the accused, the prosecution, examined fifteen witnesses and exhibited P-1 to P-28 and marked M.O.1 to M.O.16. Placing r