The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on eyewitness testimony, medical evidence, and the application of legal provisions to determine guilt or innocence.

Common Judgment: (M. Chockalingam, J.)

This judgment shall govern these two criminal appeals in C.A.Nos.181 and 251 of 2007 and also the revision in Crl.R.C.No.876 of 2007. They challenge a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, made in S.C.No.358 of 2005 whereby A-1 to A-49 stood charged and tried, and out of them, A-11, A-13, A-14, A-17, A-19, A-21, A-22, A-24 to A-42 and A-44 to A-49 were acquitted of all the charges, while A-1 to A-10, A-12, A-15, A-16, A-18, A-20, A-23 and A-43 were found guilty and awarded punishment as follows:

Table

2. Out of the said convicted accused, A-3 and A-23 have preferred C.A.No.251/2007, while the remaining convicted accused have brought forth C.A.No.181/2007. Aggrieved over that part of the order of acquittal, Crl.R.C.No.876/2007 has been brought forth by

P.W.1. Both these appeals and the revision case were taken up for consideration jointly.

3. Necessary facts for the disposal of these appeals and the revision can be stated as follows:

(a) P.W.1 is the nephew of the deceased Ramalingam. P.Ws.2 and 3 were the close relatives of the deceased. During the relevant period, the deceased was functioning as the Deputy Secretary of AIADMK party at Pennagaram area, and the accused belonged to the Communist Party of India. In the previous election, one Purushothaman contested for AIADMK in that constituency, and the deceased supported him in the electioneering campaign. On that count also, all the accused were aggrieved on the defeat of the candidate for their Communist Party, and thus, there prevailed enmity between the parties in the past. Number of criminal proceedings were pending against each other during the relevant time.

(b) Due to the previous enmity, on 18. 1992 at about 9.30 A.M., at Kalappampadi Village, the deceased Ramalingam and P.W.3 were actually doing agricultural operation in the field in Survey No.107/1A. All these named accused persons numbering 49, and also unnamed 20 persons constituted an unlawful assembly, and in furtherance of their common object of murdering Ramalingam, they came to the place. At that time, P.Ws.1 and 2 and others were actually carrying on the agricultural operation in the nearby field. Immediately, A-1 to A-4 assaulted the deceased with aruvals on his head. A-5 and A-23 took the stones nearby and hit him on the head and neck. A-6 assaulted the deceased with a bud of a gun which he was carrying and thus, they caused the death of the deceased instantaneously.

(c) P.Ws.1 and 2 who were actually rushing from the nearby field, witnessed the occurrence, while P.W.3 was actually standing by the side of the deceased at the time of occurrence. P.W.1 was about to intervene, and at that time, A-7 who had a country gun in hand, shot at him, but he escaped and ran away from the place. After sometime, P.Ws.2 and 3 went to the village and informed to P.W.1 that in the said occurrence, Ramalingam died. Immediately, P.W.1 rushed to the respondent police station and gave a written complaint, Ex.P1, to P.W.9, the Sub Inspector of Police, who was on duty at that time, at about 11.30 A.M. On the strength of Ex.P1, a case came to be registered by him in Crime No.783 of 1992 under Sec.302 of IPC. The printed FIR, Ex.P18, was despatched to the Judicial Magistrate, Palacode, through a Constable, and the same was received by the Magistrate at about 2.30 P.M.

(d) P.W.10, the Inspector of Police, on receipt of the copy of the FIR, took up investigation, proceeded to the spot, made an inspection and prepared an observation mahazar, Ex.P14, and a rough sketch, Ex.P19. Then, he conducted inquest on the dead body of Ramalingam in the presence of witnesses and panchayatdars and prepared an inquest report, Ex.P20. He also recovered the material objects from the place of occurrence under a cover of mahazar. Then, the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital along with a requisition, Ex.P16, for the purpose of postmortem.

(e) P.W.6, the Med