STATE Vs. RETTAIMANDAIYAN ALIAS MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals have been filed by the State of Tamil nadu questioning correctness of the judgment rendered by a division Bench of the Madras High Court directing acquittal of seven accused persons who had filed four appeals questioning the conviction as recorded by the learned IInd Additional sessions Judge, Tiruchirapalli Division at Tiruchy in Sessions case No. 68/92. These two appeals relate to A-2 and A-7. Seven persons faced trial for alleged commission of several offences punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'ipc' ). Following charges were framed by learned Sessions judge against the accused persons: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1492_TLPRE0_2008Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

(3.) WE find that the only reason indicated by the High Court to discard the evidence of the eye witnesses is that the dying declaration had been discarded. Even if that be so, without indicating any reason as to what deficiency was there in the evidence of eye witnesses, the High Court should not have discarded their evidence. Nowhere it has been recorded by the high Court that the eye witnesses's evidence was in any way deficient. That being so, the judgment of the High Court is not sustainable. Since the High Court has not discussed the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 independently to test whether it has credibility or not, it would be appropriate to remit the matter to the High Court to consider the matter afresh and examine whether for any reason the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 need to be discarded.