KANNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari, passed in S.C. No. 79 of 2005 on 24/6/2009, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried, found guilty and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of ten years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 449 IPC; to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offence under Section 302 IPC and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months for the offence under Section 380 IPC.

(2.) The short facts that are necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

(3.) Advancing arguments on behalf of the accused/appellant, the learned Counsel for the accused/appellant would submit that, the occurrence had taken place on 21/1/2004 before 3.30 p.m. The complaint was given at about 9.45 p.m., by P.W.1. It is a case where the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. The prosecution relied upon only circumstantial evidence. P.Ws.8 and 11 are the husband and wife respectively, who were actually the neighbours of the deceased. Out of these two witnesses, P.W.11 turned hostile. The investigator would claim that the accused was arrested on 26/1/2004. But P.W.8 has categorically stated that the accused was arrested on 21/1/2004 when he was found stealing coconuts and he was taken to custody. From the evidence of P.W.8 it would be quite clear that the claim of the investigator that the accused was arrested on 26/1/2004 is false.