JAINLABDIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A1 Jainlabdin, A2 Radha Krishnan and A3 Abdul Ajeez @ Siraj were convicted for the offences under Sections 449. 506(ii), 352 and 302 IPC and 302 read with 34 I.P.C. and sentenced them thereunder. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) The facts leading to conviction are as follows:-

(3.) Mr.P.Suresh, learned counsel for A1 and A2, would take us through the entire evidence and contend that P.W.1 would not have been present in the place of occurrence, as in the memo Ex.D1 filed by him before the Court on 16.8.1996, he stated that the occurrence had taken place in some other place and further, the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 would make it clear that there are various contradictions and a perusal of evidence of P.W.12 Head Constable and P.W.17 Inspector of Police would indicate that the complaint would not have been registered at the time as alleged by the prosecution. He would further contend that there are various infirmities in the evidence adduced by the prosecution. It is also contended that P.W.3 has neither identified the accused in the parade nor in the Court and as such, in the absence of any acceptable evidence, the accused cannot be convicted for the offences referred to above.