KATTAIYAN ALIAS KANNAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Ariyalur, made in S.C.No.40/2009 whereby the Accused/Appellants stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 120-B, IPC and 302 r/w 34, IPC (2 counts) and awarded two years. Rigorous Imprisonment for offence under Section 120-B, IPC and life imprisonment (two counts) for the offence under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each for each count, in default, to undergo six months" Rigorous Imprisonment each for each count.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this Appeal can be stated as follows:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel would further submit that the second circumstance, which according to the prosecution was strong, is that on 9.3.2009, when P.W.9-Village Administrative Officer was in his office, A1 and A2 appeared before him and gave confessional statement which was recorded and P.W.9 prepared a statement Ex.P.5. Thereafter, the Accused were produced before the Police and both the Accused came forward to give confessional statement voluntarily and the same was also recorded by the Investigator-P.W.17. Then the Accused produced M.O.3 and M.O.4, the weapon of crime respectively. Much reliance was placed before the Trial Court on the confessional statement given by the Accused before the V.A.O. and the Trial Judge accepted the same as the strong piece of evidence but the Trial Court should have rejected this piece of evidence for the reason that according to P.W.9-Village Administrative Officer, both the Accused persons appeared before him on 9.3.2009. According to P.W.9, he produced both of the Accused before the Police Officer along with the statement given by them and on the strength of which, a case came to be registered originally. Pointing to the evidence of P.W.5, learned Counsel would submit that according to P.W.5, on the date of occurrence both the Accused appeared before the V.A.O. at 8.45 a.m. on 8.3.2009. But according to the V.A.O. the Accused appeared before him only on 9.3.2009 i.e., on he next day of the occurrence. Therefore, it is quite clear that such a confessional statement could not have been given by the Accused to the V.A.O. or the V.A.O. could not have recorded the same. This would clearly indicate that the alleged confession statement was introduced in order to strengthen the prosecution case as possible but in vain. The alleged confession and recovery were all false. Thus, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case. The Trial Judge should have rejected the case of the prosecution but has taken an erroneous view and found the Accused guilty of the charges. Hence, the Accused/Appellants are entitled for acquittal.