UDAYAKUMAR Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL these three appeals namely C.A. 24 of 2010 by A-1, C. A. 17 of 2010 by A-2 and C.A. 22 of 2010 by A-3, concentrate in challenging a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No. V, Chennai, made in S.C. No. 113 of 2009 whereby they stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded punishment as follows: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_213_MADLJ(CRI)3_2010Image1.jpg</IMG>

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:

(3.) COMMENTING that part of the evidence, the learned senior counsel would submit that in the instant case, the same should have been rejected by the trial Court outright, but not done so; that why P.W.7 did not come with anything to speak about the alleged conspiracy in the first statement remained unknown; that after a lapse of time, the statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C; that even in that statement, he has given a categorical evidence to the effect that he was actually pressurized by the police due to which he gave that statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. before the Metropolitan Magistrate; that he also brought to the notice of the Court by way of a letter with acknowledgement due in that regard; that they were also marked as Exhibits D-1 and D-2 on the defence side; and that all would clearly indicate that P.W.7's evidence should have been rejected; but the trial Court has accepted the same.