SEENIVASAN Vs. STATE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Division (Fast Track Court No.I), Tiruchirappalli made in S.C.No.32 of 2007, whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with fine and default sentence.

(2.) The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus:-

(3.) Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellant the learned counsel, Mr.D.Malaichamy, would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution relied on two pieces of evidence namely the evidence of PW2 and PW3 as eyewitnesses and also the recovery of the weapon of crime on the confession of the accused. The learned counsel for the appellant would further submit that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. So far as PW2 was concerned, she was actually staying along with the deceased and on the date of occurrence, according to PW2, when she came out of the house after hearing the distressing cry of the deceased and at that time she found the accused moving from the place of occurrence with aruval. Equally, the same is spoken to by PW3, a neighbour. But the investigator has categorically admitted that they have not given such a statement at the time when the statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellant further added that the inaction on the part of PW2, and also the mother of the deceased, would clearly indicate that such an occurrence could not have taken place at all. He added that the prosecution has not examined, Mr.Karupaya, the village menial who informed PW1, the village administrative Officer. In so far as the motive part is concerned, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the previous night. Following the same, the occurrence has taken place. The entire motive part was actually a flimsy one which would not have been led to such a heinous crime. The learned counsel added further that though the investigator claimed that the aruval, the weapon of crime, was recovered following the confessional statement alleged to have been made by the accused to the investigator in the presence of the witnesses, the weapon of crime was not sent for chemical analysis and no explanation was forthcoming from the prosecution for the same and thus, all the above would go to show that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the guilt of the accused. In such circumstances, the appellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court.