SOMA SUNDARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Thoothukudi passed in S.C. No.170 of 2007 on 23.06.2009, whereby the appellants / accused 1 to 6 stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as under, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed. Accused Charges under Finding Punishment Section A1 to A6 148 IPC Found guilty A1 to A6 were sentenced to undergo 3 years R.I. each. A1 to A6 302 r/w 34 IPC Found guilty A1 to A6 were sentenced to undergo (3 counts) life imprisonment each for three counts and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each towards each count in default, to undergo 1 year S.I. each,for each count. A1 to A6 302 IPC Found guilty A1 to A6 were sentenced to undergo 10 years R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to undergo 1 year S.I. each. A1 307 IPC Found guilty A1 was sentenced to undergo 10 years (2 counts) on one count R.I. and to pay a fine Rs.1000/- in default to undergo 1 year S.I. A1 to A6 435 IPC Found guilty A1 to A6 were sentenced to undergo 7 years R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each in default to undergo 1 year S.I. each.

(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 / appellants, the learned counsel would submit that the occurrence took place at about 9.30 p.m. on 14.05.2003, in which three persons namely, Mayajohn, Anthony and his son Dinesh were murdered and in order to prove the charges with regard to the first part of the incident, the prosecution relied on the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 6 and insofar as the second part is concerned, it relied on the evidence of P.Ws.4 and 5. The learned counsel further added that even according to the prosecution at about 9.30 p.m. on the date of occurrence, it was utter darkness and also the occurrence took place inside the house. He further stated that P.Ws.1 and 6 have categorically stated that about 4 to 5 persons came with deadly weapons and that they knew only A1 and they have not stated anything about the other accused. He further submitted that insofar as the second part of the incident is concerned, P.W.4 has not spoken anything about A2 or any other accused and insofar as P.W.5 is concerned, he could not have been present in the scene of occurrence at all, because P.W.5 stated in his evidence that immediately on hearing the message that the first deceased was attacked, he went to the opposite house. Therefore according to the learned counsel, the evidence of P.W.5 shows that he was not at all present in the scene of occurrence and hence he could not have seen the occurrence.