M.Thakachalam, J.

The challenge under this Criminal Appeal is the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused by the Principal Sessions Judge, Pondicherry in S.C.No.46/95 for various offences.

2. The Inspector of Police, Mudaliarpet Police Division, Pondicherry had filed a final report against all the accused/appellants, seeking appropriate punishments under Sections 148, 302 and 324 I.P.C. alleging that on 7.10.94 at about 6.30. p.m., all the accused formed themselves as unlawful assembly, with the common object of committing riot and in pursuance of the same they have wrongfuly restrained some of the prosecution witnesses, as well as one Kuppan; that with an intention to commit murder they have assaulted Kuppan @ Kuppusamy with deadly weapons, thereby causing his death and that they have also inflicted injuries to some of the prosecution witnesses, in this view they should be dealt with accordingly.

3. The learned Principal Sessions Judge satisfying himself to frame charges, originally charged all the accused under Sections 148, 302 and 324 I.P.C (three counts). Later on revised charges were framed against A 1 to A 6 under Section 148 and 341 I.P.C., in addition framing a charge under Section 302 I.P.C. against A 1, A 2, A 5 and A 6, Further a charge against A 3 and A 4 was framed under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. For the grievous injuries caused to one Abimannan, a charge under Section 326 I.P.C. is framed against A3, A4, A6 and roping A1, A2, A5 under Section 326 read with 149 I.P.C. In addition for causing injury to one Subramaniam, against A3, A4 and A6 charge under Section 324 I.P.C.is framed whereas against A1, A2 and A5 a charge under Section 324 read with 149 is framed. For the injuries said to have been caused to Muthulakshmi, against A1 a charge is framed under Section 323 I.P.C. whereas A 2 to A6 were charged under Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C. In the incident one Anitha also sustained injuries, for which A4 was directed to face the charge under Section 323, whereas A1, A2, A3, A5 and A6 were directed to face the charge under Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C. One Prakash also sustained injuries, along which A 3 was directed to face the charge under Section 323 I.P.C whereas other accused were directed to face the charge, under Section 323 read with 149 I.P.C.

4. All the accused have denied their involvement and in this view they pleaded not guilty, thereby compelling the prosecution to march as many as 21 witnesses armed with 71 documents and 28 material objects. To cast cloud upon the prosecution evidence thereby to create doubt, on behalf of the accused, through prosecution witnesses, D 1 to D 4 have been exhibited.

5. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, while evaluating the above materials and evidencing value, had come to the conclusion that no offence is made out against the accused, under Section 148 I.P.C. and consequently, he came to the conclusion, that the read with offence, under Section 149 I.P.C.is not sustainable, whereas he came to the conclusion, that the accused are liable to be dealt with, the substantial offence read with Section 34 I.P.C. In this view, he sentenced A 1 to A 6 to undergo 3 months simple imprisonment, for the offence under Sections 341 read with 34 I.P.C. The accused/appellants were directed to suffer life imprisosnment, for the proved offence under Sections 302 read with 34 I.P.C., in addition imposing a fine of Rs.100/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonsment for one month. For the offence under Sections 326 read with 34 I.P.C., all the accused have been directed to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment plus payment of a sum of Rs.50/- as fine each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment, for one month. All the accused were sentenced, each, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year under Sections 324 read with 34 I.P.C. and for the offence under Sections 323 read with 34 I.P.C. they were directed to suffer simple imprisonment, for six