THANGARAJI Vs. STATE BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE, is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Judge Dharmapuri, made in S.C. No. 109 of 2009 dated 9.4.2010 whereby, the appellant/accused stood charged and tried under Section 302 I.P.C.. and on trial, he was found guilty of the above said charge and he was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and he was imposed with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

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

(3.) APART from that, the learned counsel would submit that M.0.2-rope alleged to have been recovered from the appellant/accused was not sent for Chemical Analysis. If the M.0.2-rope had been sent for Chemical AnalP.W.1ysis bloodstains and part of tissues would have been traced. For this, no explanation is forth coming from the prosecution. Under such circumstances, when the appellant/accused was called upon to explain the incriminating circumstance found against him, the appellant/accused has categorically stated that at the time when the child was in the cradle both himself and his wife were outside the house and on hearing the distressing cry they both rushed inside the house and saw that the child, which was in the cradle fell down and due to which, the child died and it way only accidental, in which, he has no role to play. Under such circumstances, though the prosecution is able to show that the appellant/accused was also very much available in the house along with P.W.2 and the child, there is no circumstance or any evidence either direct or indirect connecting the appellant/accused with the crime and thus, it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction. Since, the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case, the appellant is entitled for acquittal in the hands of this Court, but, the learned trial Judge has taken an erroneous view and has passed the judgment of conviction and sentence which has to be set aside.