KARTHICK Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment dated 10.12.2009 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Villupuram in S.C.No.85 of 2009, whereby the appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated thus: (i) P.W.1 is the brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is the cousin brother of the deceased. When P.Ws.1 to 3 were standing in the Naickenthope Arunthathiyar Street, on the date of occurrence viz., on 25.07.2008 at about 4.30 p.m., they found the accused and the deceased were quarreling. Immediately the accused took the wooden log, which was lying by the side and attacked the deceased on the back of the head. THE accused ran away from the place of occurrence. (ii) THE deceased was taken to the Government Hospital, Villupuram, where P.W.7 Doctor examined him and declared him dead. P.W.1 went to the respondent-police and gave Ex.P1 complaint. On the strength of Ex.P1 complaint, P.W.8 Sub Inspector of Police, registered a case in Crime No.441 of 2008 for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Ex.P10 First Information Report and Ex.P1 complaint were despatched to the Court. (iii) P.W.9 Inspector took up investigation, proceeded to the place of occurrence, made an inspection and prepared observation mahazar Ex.P2 and rough sketch Ex.P11 in the presence of witnesses. THEreafter, he conducted inquest on the dead body in the presence of witnesses and panchayatars and the inquest report is marked as Ex.P12. THEreafter, the dead body was sent with a requisition Ex.P5 to the Government Hospital, Villupuram for conducting autopsy. (iv) P.W.6 Doctor conducted autopsy on the dead body and issued Ex.P8 post-mortem Certificate, where he has opined that the deceased died 14 to 16 hours prior to autopsy due to the shock and hemorrhage due to head injury. In the said Certificate, the following injuries are noted:- "1. A lacerated wound over the right occipital region of scalp 5 x 1 cm x bone depth. 2. A lacerated wound over the occipital region of scalp centre about 5 x 1 cm x bone depth.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellant, Mr.V.Gopinath, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the prosecution relied on the witnesses viz. P.Ws.1 to 3 as eye witnesses. Out of whom, P.W.3 has turned hostile. P.W.1 is the elder brother and P.W.2 is the cousin brother of the deceased. On careful scrutiny, it would be clear that the evidence was actually not worthy enough to accept. The alleged recovery pursuant to the confession statement is nothing but cooked up affair. Learned senior counsel added further that except the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3, the prosecution has no evidence to offer. The Trial Court should have acquitted the appellant, but has taken an erroneous view. Hence, this Court has to consider the case of the appellant and render justice.