NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is filed against the judgment and order dtd. 23/4/2019 passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C.No.44 of 2016, wherein the appellant was convicted for an offence under Sec. 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 in default, to undergo Simple Imprisonment for three months.

(2.) Facts of the case as presented by the prosecution flows as follows:

(3.) Mr.G.Karuppasamy Pandian, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that there are glaring inconsistencies in the deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who were considered as prime eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Particularly, P.W.4, another eyewitness, had deposed that both P.W.1 and P.W.2 had come to the scene of crime much later after even the neighbours had gathered there. It is further contended that the statement of P.W.4 totally weakened the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2, who had stated that the murder took place in their presence and the appellant was seen attacking the victim with a wooden log. Further more, there were contradictory versions, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, with regard to the weapon used by the accused. While P.W.1 and P.W.2 stated that the wooden log (M.O.1) was left by the assailant in the scene of crime itself the prosecution seizure mahazar (Ex.P4) tells a different story, it was contended. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the prosecution case was not even proved and despite the gaping holes in the theory and the evidence, the accused was held guilty of the offence under Sec. 302 IPC which tantamounts to miscarriage of justice.