MURUGESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai passed in S.C. No.311 of 2005 on 19.08.2005, whereby the sole accused / appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 341 and 302 IPC and awarded one month S.I. under Section 341 IPC and also life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and default sentence under Section 302 IPC.

(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 / appellant, the learned counsel for the accused / appellant put forth the following points, which, according to him, would suffice to set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. According to the learned counsel for the accused / appellant, the occurrence has taken place at about 8.15 p.m. and P.Ws.1 to 3 have been shown as eye-witnesses. But P.Ws.1 to 3, according to the learned counsel, could not have seen the occurrence at all, since P.W.1 or P.W.2 could not say what was actually the length and width of the street where the incident occurred or the colour of the saree which the deceased worn at that time or the colour of the clothes worn by the accused / appellant. The counsel further stated that in his evidence, P.W.1, who is a taxi driver, has stated that he used to visit the Police Station often for hiring his taxi. Thus, according to the learned counsel, P.W.1 is a stock witness and he has been used by the Police often, for the purpose of giving false evidence, and also P.W.2 happened to be a friend of P.W.1, and hence, their evidence cannot be relied upon.