In criminal cases, convictions must be based on evidence that proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt; substantial contradictions undermine the prosecution's case.

JUDGMENT :

P. VELMURUGAN, J.

These criminal appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District, in Sessions Case No.27 of 2007, dated 23/09/2020.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 28/04/2006, when the de-facto complainant Bose-Head Constable, was returning to the Police Station, around 07.00 pm, he was waylaid by the accused persons near Nanthicheri bus stop and was attacked by them. They tied him up with a lungi and took his motorcycle away. They also took away some of his valuables. After sometime, he managed to escape and walk to the Village. Upon reaching the village, he informed one Neelamegam-PW22 and one Manikandan about the incident. They, in turn, informed PW2-Malar, Sub Inspector of Police attached to Kamuthi Police Station and she assembled the constables and went to Nanthicheri bus stop. There, they found the Sub Inspector of Police Subramanian lying with injuries. Both the injured persons were taken in an auto to the Government Hospital, Kamuthi and from there, Bose was shifted to Meenakshi Mission Hospital, Madurai. The Sub Inspector Subramanian was taken to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai, where he was declared dead on arrival.

3. Upon receipt of the complaint, the respondent Police registered two cases in Crime Nos.53 and 54 of 2006 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 342, 307 and 379(NP) of IPC. After investigation in Crime No.54 of 2006, charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Kamuthi, and the same was taken on file in PRC No.25 of 2008 for the offences punishable under Sections 147 , 148, 341, 342, 307, 379 r/w 302 IPC. After completing the formalities, since the offences are exclusively triable by a Court of Session, the case was committed to the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and it was taken on file in SC No.27 of 2007 and thereafter, the same was made over to the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, for disposal.

4. After completing the formalities, since there were prima facie materials to frame the charges against the accused persons, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Paramakudi, framed charges for the offences under Sections 120(B), 396, 302 r/w 34 IPC as against A1, A3, A4, A5 and A6 and under Sections 120(B) and 396 IPC as against A7.

5. In order to prove the charges against the accused, on the side of the prosecution, 56 witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW56 and 70 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P70, besides marking 28 materials objects as MO1 to MO28.

6. When the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in respect of the incriminating circumstances appearing against them based on the evidence adduced by the prosecution, the accused denied the same as false. On the side of the defence, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced.

7. The trial Court, after completing the trial found A1 and A3 to A6 in SC No.27 of 2007 guilty of offences under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and 396 IPC and a sentence of Life Imprisonment was imposed on them, apart from a direction to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- each, failing which to undergo Simple Imprisonment for a period of one year. In respect of charge under Section 120(B) IPC, they were acquitted. Further, A7 was found not guilty and he was acquitted from the charges levelled against him under Sections 120(B) and 396 IPC.

8. Aggrieved over the judgment of conviction and sentence, A1, A3, A4, A5 and A6 are before this Court by way of filing these appeals namely Crl.A(MD)Nos.355 of 2020, 27 of 2021, 25, 153 and 257 of 2022.

9