CHENNAI: The Madras High Court has compounded the charge against all accused in the sensational law students clash, which rocked the entire State in 2008, from Sec. 148 of the IPC (rioting armed with deadly weapons) to that of Sec. 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt) and ordered their acquittal.
A deadly clash broke out between day scholars and the hosteliers of Dr Ambedkar Government Law College on November 11, 2008 in the printing of posters for the celebration of Thevar Jayanthi, which fell on October 30. The allegation of the hosteliers was that the other group purposely omitted the words Dr Ambedkar in the posters. The live telecast of the ugly and violent incident of the students attacking each other with deadly weapons created a sense of fear and low opinion about law students in the minds of the public, then.
Justice R Suresh Kumar ordered the acquittal while passing orders on a batch of appeals from Chithiraiselvan and others challenging an order dated January 28, 2016 of the XVII Additional Sessions Judge here, on Tuesday.
Originally, the students wanted the court to set aside an order of the trial court awarding three-year simple imprisonment to them. Later, converting their prayer, their senior counsel prayed for permission from the court to convert the offence under Sec. 148 of the IPC to that of Sec. 325 IPC so that the accused may get certain relief.
The judge pointed out that the non-compoundable offences cannot be compounded as done by the Supreme Court in some cases by invoking the power under Article 142 of the Constitution. Therefore, the said course of action cannot be adopted by this court in this case.
However, the judge pointed out that a perusal of the evidences adduced before the trial court in the case on hand showed that prosecution had not conducted any identification parade for constituting the offence under Sec. 148. Nor the only crucial witness - college principal - had categorically stated that he was not able to identify the accused persons except one, even before the trial court. There had been no eye witness to substantiate the exact course of action by any particular accused using dangerous weapon to cause hurt voluntarily on the complainants/injured.
There had been some evidence to constitute the offences of hurt or grievous hurt alone as the victim/injured had taken treatment at a government hospital for a month. It is to be noted that the complainants/injured, who deposed before the trial court, had turned completely hostile.