JAYASEELAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court allowing the appeal filed by the State. Challenge in the appeal was to the correctness of the judgment of learned Sessions Judge, Madurai directing acquittal of the present appellant. He was charged for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ). In fact two persons were tried in the said Sessions Case. Present appellant is the son of A2. By the trial court s judgment, A2 was also acquitted. Though State had questioned the acquittal of both the accused persons, leave was granted by the High Court only in respect of the present appellant i.e. A1.

(2.) Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The injuries on the appellant were not explained and in view of the fact that the co-accused A2 was acquitted on the same set of evidence, the High Court ought not to have allowed the appeal. The evidence of the eye witnesses cannot be said to be totally without possibility of false implication.