LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-157

KRISHNAN Vs. STATE

Decided On July 14, 2010
KRISHNAN Appellant
V/S
STATE, THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SIVAGANGAI TALUK POLICE STATION, SIVAGANGAI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made to a judgment of the Sessions Division, Sivagangai District, dated 18.12.2009, made in S.C.No.41/2008, whereby the appellant, shown as accused No.1, along with another accused ranked as accused No.2, stood charged under Section 302 IPC (two counts), on trial, found guilty thereunder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years on each count and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the trial court found accused No.2 not guilty and acquitted her of the said charge.

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

(3.) After committal proceedings, the case was taken on file by the Sessions Court in S.C.No.41/2008 and necessary charges were framed. To prove the charges against the accused, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses as P.Ws.1 to 11 and marked 33 documents as Exs.P-1 to P-33 and produced M.Os.1 to 8. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, when the accused were questioned under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code about the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, they denied all of them as false. On the side of defence, neither oral evidence nor documentary evidence was let in. The trial court, after hearing the parties, took the view that the prosecution has proved the charge against accused No.1 beyond reasonable doubt, found him guilty under the charge of murder (two counts), convicted him thereunder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1000/-, with default sentence, on each count. In respect of accused No.2, the trial judge has recorded an order of acquittal, since he formed an opinion that the prosecution has not proved its case against accused No.2 beyond reasonable doubt. Hence this appeal at the instance of accused No.1.