Order.- Accused 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are the revision petitioners. A-1 was found guilty of offences under sections 148, 324 and 326, Indian Penal Code, and was convicted thereunder and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months under each charge, by the I Class Magistrate, Vellore. A-2 was found guilty under sections 148 and 324, Indian Penal Code two counts); A-3 was found guilty under sections 148 and 324, Indian Penal Code; A-5 was found guilty under sections 147 and 323 (two counts) and A-6 was found guilty under sections 147 and 323, Indian Penal Code. They were convicted thereunder, but were released under section 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act or their executing bonds. A-2 was directed to pay Rs. 100 as costs of proceedings and A-3, A-5 and A-6 were each directed to pay Rs. 50 as costs. In appeal, the convictions under section 148, Indian Penal Code, in so far as A-1, A-2 and A-3 were confirmed and the convictions under section 147 as regards A-5 and A-6 were confirmed and A-1 was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500 under section 148, Indian Penal Code and the order releasing A-2, A-3, A-5 and A-6 under the Probation of Offenders Act was maintained and confirmed. The revision petitioners were not found guilty of other offences and were acquitted of those charges. The revision petitioners now challenge the convictions under sections 148 and 147, Indian Penal Code.

The facts are:

2. Originally, the revision petitioners and six others were charged for various offences under sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 341, 342 and 355read with sections 149 and 109, Indian Penal Code. Except the revision petitioners, others were acquitted. The allegation was that on 3rd March, 1975, at about 8-30 p.m. the revision petitioners committed rioting with the common object of causing grievous hurt and simple hurt to Kanagasabapathy (P.W. 1) and others and they were armed with dangerous weapons at that time. The 7th accused is said to have instigated the revision petitioners to attack P.Ws. 1 to 3. and in pursuance of that instigation, the first accused cut P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 with a knife, the second accused beat P.W. 3 with stick and the 6th accused beat P.W. 1 with stick and the fourth accused obstructed P.W. 3. As I earlier pointed out, the trial Magistrate relied on the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 17 and convicted the revision petitioners of the offences with which they were charged and acquitted the other accused.

3. The learned Counsel Mr. Krishnan appearing for the revision petitioners pointed out that the Appellate Judge has acquitted the revision petitioners of all other offences with which they were charged, but has chosen to convict them under sections 148 and 147, Indian Penal Code, and when once he finds the evidence of those witnesses, namely, P.Ws. 1 to 3, is unreliable and lacks in credibility, he ought not to have relied on the rest of the evidence of those witnesses to convict the revision petitioners of the offences under sections 148 and 147.

4. For contra, the learned Public Prosecutor pointed out relying on the ruling in Ranbir v. State of Punjab1, that in cases, of party factions, there is generally speaking a tendency on the part of the prosecution witnesses to implicate some innocent persons also along with guilty ones and where a witness is found to have given unreliable evidence, then it is the duty of the Court to scrutinise the rest of the evidence with care and caution and if the remaining evidence is trustworthy and the substratum of the prosecution case remains intact, then the Court should uphold the prosecution case to the extent it is considered safe and trustworthy.

5. Bearing this principle enunciated in the said ruling, we may now scrutinise the findings given by the learned Appellate Judge. The learned Judge has not believed the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 in regard to the manner in which they were injured. It should be noted that P.Ws. 1 to 3 were injured. The case, as spoken to by the witnesses, was that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document