MAHESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Salem made in S.C.No.226/2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood, charged, tried and found guilty under sections 449 and 302 I.P.C. and awarded ten two rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo 4 months rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 449 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo six years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under section 302 I.P.C. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

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

(3.) ADDED further learned counsel, the accused also sustained injury but the same was not explained. As per 313 statement, only on the request of Menaka, the accused went to the house of Menaka and at that time, one known person and 40 unknown person attacked him and hence, he sustained injuries. It is the case where the prosecution has to explain how the accused sustained injuries but the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case. Hence, it is a fit case for acquittal but the trial court has taken an erroneous view and convicted the accused. In support of the contention that the doctor has given opinion at the time of post mortem that the stomach was empty which is contradictory to the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2003 Crl.L.J. 1694 ( Moti v. State of U.P.)