PARAMASIVAM PARAMAN KOTTIYAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants, being accused nos. 1 and 2, alongwith one Selvaraj, who happened to be a driver of the deceased, were charged under section 302 I. P. C. read with section 34 IPC on the allegation that they had stabbed Raja and killed him on the night of 26th October, 1988. The learned sessions judge admittedly, on the basis of the circumstantial evidence convicted them under section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to life imprisonment. Accused nos. 1 and 2 were also convicted under section 364 I. P. C. read with sections 120-B and 109 of the I. P. C. Selvaraj, the third accused was sentenced to imprisonment for life under section 302 I. P. C. read with section 109 I. P. C. Aggrieved by the order of the learned sessions judge, the matter was placed before the High Court in appeal by the accused persons. The High court, upon consideration of the matter, acquitted accused no. 3 of all charges but while passing an order of acquittal against accused nos. 1 and 2 of all the charges, but as regards charge no. 4, the conviction of accused nos. 1 and 2 stood confirmed. Charge no. 4 spoken of earlier happened to be the one under section 302 i. P. C. read with section 34 IPC. Incidentally, at the conclusion of the order impugned, the High Court was pleased to observe in paragraph 20 the following:

(2.) The principal reliance for such conviction thus was on the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 6 and 16. The learned senior advocate appearing in support of the appeal made a detailed submission as to why the evidence of the above noted four prosecution witnesses cannot be relied upon. For convenience sake, relevant extracts from the examination-in-chief being the gist of the PW1's evidence are set out hereinbelow;

(3.) The evidence of Thiru Jagdeesan PW 6 needs to be dealt with in slightly greater detail since the principal reason for the impugned order has been the evidence of the said witness - PW 6 as such we shall deal with the same immediately hereafter, but before so doing, the evidence of pw16, Thiru Felix Stephen however ought to be noticed at this juncture. PW 16 though a formal witness but happened to be finger print expert. In his examination- in-chief, PW16 stated thus: