ANANDHARAJ Vs. STATE BY, INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter was heard through "Video Conferencing".

(2.) The appeal has been preferred by the 2 nd accused against the judgment in S.C. No. 124 of 2018 dated 06.09.2019, imposing life imprisonment on the appellant as well as two other accused for having murdered one Rahman, brother of P.W.3, with whom A1 had love affair. The deceased Rahman questioned A1 not to continue the relationship. Since the deceased Rahman was questioning continuously and creating problem, A1 joined with A2 and A3, who are all his close relatives and murdered the deceased. The Trial Court appreciating all the evidence, convicted the accused for life imprisonment. The said judgment is sought to be suspended by the petitioner/2 nd accused who is the uncle's son of A1 and A3, who are brothers.

(3.) Mr. V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory. The Trial Court mainly relied upon the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 to prove the last seen theory. However, P.W.4 and P.W.5 had neither named the petitioner/2 nd accused nor said anything about his participation in the crime. They only stated that A1 was seen with the deceased Rahman and at that time, A2 and A3 were going in a motorcycle. Beyond that, there is nothing in the evidence against the petitioner. Based on that evidence, the Trial Court erroneously convicted the appellant, he would submit. Secondly, he would submit that no identification parade was conducted as P.W.4 and P.W.5 did not name 2 nd accused/appellant and even they were not knowing the name and subsequently, they came to know about that through his friend. Non-conduction of parade is fatal to the case. Thirdly he would submit that there is no overt act attributed to A2 as he was only alleged to be holding the deceased by mouth.