JEGAN Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern these two appeals in C.A.Nos.220 and 221 of 2010 by A-1 and A-2 respectively.

(2.) THESE appeals challenge a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.V, Chennai, in S.C.No.292 of 2009 whereby the appellants stood charged namely A-1 under Sec.302 IPC, A-2 under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC and both A-1 and A-2 under Sec.506(2) IPC, tried and found guilty as per the charges, and A-1 was awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 IPC, and A-2 was awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence under Sec.302 r/w 34 IPC, and both A-1 and A-2 were awarded 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/- and default sentence under Sec.506(2) IPC.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution came out with the story that the occurrence has taken place at about 2.45 P.M. On 27.7.2009, just in front of a mechanic shop; that P.Ws.1 to 4 are shown as eyewitnesses; that all the eyewitnesses marched before the trial Court, could not have seen the occurrence at all; that admittedly, the occurrence has taken place not only in front of the shop of one Babu, who was not examined, but also in front of the house of one Kousalya, the Sub Inspector of Police, whose son met with an accident and died, and the funeral ceremony was going on that day; that it would be quite clear that number of persons were inside and outside the house at that time; that under the circumstances, such an occurrence could not have happened as put forth by the prosecution; that as far as P.W.3 is concerned, her name does not find place either in Ex.P1 or in the FIR, and thus the presence of P.W.3 at the place of occurrence was thoroughly ruled out; that as far as P.Ws.1 and 2 are concerned, they could not have seen the occurrence at all; that according to P.W.9, the Head Constable, he got information through a boy in the street when he was on his way, and further he proceeded to the spot, and it was he who actually took the injured in an auto to the Government General Hospital; that according to P.Ws.1 to 3, even after seeing the occurrence, they did not even go nearby to help him or they did not raise any alarm, and because of fear, they ran from the place of occurrence since they were criminally intimidated, and after some time, within five minutes, they came back to the place; but, the dead body of the deceased was not found therein; that in such circumstances, the evidence of P.W.9 that he went to the spot and it was he who took the deceased in an auto would clearly belie the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3; that from the evidence of P.W.7, the Doctor, who declared him dead, it would be quite clear that the deceased was taken to the hospital by the Head Constable, P.W.9; that P.W.9 has informed to the Doctor, as could be seen from the contents of Ex.P6, the accident register copy, that the deceased was unknown, and unknown persons have attacked him with uruttukattai, and thus it would be quite clear that if really P.W.9 was at the spot and took him to the hospital in the auto, he would have been informed by P.W.4 or his owner Babu who were all the assailants, but it was not done so; that the other circumstances are that it was P.W.9 who took the deceased in the auto to the hospital and admitted him, and at the time of admission, he was declared by the Doctor as dead; and that it would be quite clear that P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have been in the place of occurrence at all.