RAMADOSS Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE THANJAVUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern two appeals, viz. Crl.A.Nos.193 of 2008 and 119 of 2010, the former filed by A-1, A-4, A-7, A-8 and A-9, while the latter filed by A-5. Both these appeals concentrate on challenging the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.1, Thanjavur, dated 14.02.2008, made in S.C. No.59 of 2006, whereby the accused / appellants along with others, stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as under. "TABLE" Accused Charges under Section Finding Punishment A1 to A5 and A7 toA9 148 IPC A1, A4, A5, A7 to A9 found guilty A1, A4, A5, A7 to A9 were sentenced to undergo 6 months imprisonment each. A1 to A5 and A7 to A9 341 IPC A1, A4, A5, A7 to A9 found guilty A1, A4, A5, A7 to A9 were sentenced to undergo 1 month S.I. each. A1 to A5 and A7 to A9 342 IPC Not found guilty - A1 to A5 and A7 to A9 302 r/w 149 IPC A1, A4, A5, A7 to A9 found guilty A1, A4, A5, A7 to A9 were sentenced to undergo life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- each in default to undergo 1 month S.I. each.

(2.) PENDING the appeal, A-6 died, and hence, the charges framed against him stood abated. The Trial Court acquitted A-2 and A-3 of the charges levelled against them.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the accused / appellants, the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.Shanmugavelayutham appearing for the appellants in Crl.A.No.193 of 2008 and the learned counsel Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy in Crl.A. No.119 of 2010, would submit that in the instant case, according to the prosecution the occurrence took place at about 10.30 a.m. on 21.03.2003 and the prosecution has marched 3 witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 as eye-witnesses. The counsel pointed out that the evidence of P.W.7 would show that these three witnesses, i.e. P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have been present at the time of occurrence at all. P.Ws.1 to 3 are actually interested witnesses and they are also relations. Evidence of P.W.5 would clearly indicate that these persons could not have been in the place of occurrence at all. Insofar as scene of occurrence is concerned, 3 versions were put forth before the Trial Court, one near the Railway track, second near the Pallathu Street and the third between the house of one Ramachandran and Amuthan. Because of these three versions, the prosecution is unable to fix the place of occurrence and hence the prosecution has failed to prove the case. Insofar the occurrence part is concerned, the evidence of eye-witnesses are not reliable. Added further the counsel that A-8 was injured and he got blood injury and the witnesses have admitted that they were running from the spot, for which the prosecution has not given any explanation whatsoever. The prosecution has also not given any explanation as to the injury found on A-8, which occurred at the time of occurrence in the same transaction. Even the Investigator has admitted that A-8 was arrested when he was actually taking treatment in the hospital and apart from that, on his complaint a case came to be registered and investigation was on, and hence the F.I.R. relating to that particular case should have been produced and joint trial should have been conducted, but the prosecution has failed to do so.