CHELLADURAI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge cum Fast Track Court No.1, Tuticorin passed in S.C. No.152 of 2008 on 29.01.2009, whereby the appellant / accused stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as under, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed. Charges under Finding Punishment Section 449 IPC Found guilty The accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo 6 months R.I. 302 IPC Found guilty (2 counts) The accused was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment for each count and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- towards each count in default, to undergo 6 months R.I. for each count. 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, Found guilty 1908 The accused was sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo 6 months R.I. 5(a) of the Explosive Found guilty Substances Act, 1908 The accused was sentenced to undergo 5 years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default, to undergo 6 months R.I.

(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 would submit that the entire case of the prosecution rests on the the direct evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. He further submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 are admittedly close relatives of both the deceased and they were not the residents of the area where they stayed. The occurrence took place inside the house of both the deceased at 1.00 a.m. on 19.08.2007. Pointing to the time factor and the place of occurrence, the learned counsel would urge that such occurrence could not have been seen by the witnesses P.Ws.1 and 2 as there are certain discrepancies in their evidence, and apart from that, in the instant case, the Observation Mahazar and other reports relied on by the prosecution would indicate that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have witnessed the occurrence. Pointing to the Post Mortem Certificates, the learned counsel would submit that P.Ws.1 and 2 did not account for the injuries sustained by the deceased.