S.SINGARAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the accused in S.C.No.76 of 2006, on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge [Fast Track Court], Pudukkottai. Altogether, there were nine accused. By Judgment dated 16.02.2007, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.4 to 7 and 9 and convicted these appellants under various penal provisions, as detailed below. <FRM>JUDGEMENT_727_MADLJ(CRI)2_2013_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows:- The deceased, in this case, was one Chithirakannu. In respect of a land dispute between the first accused - S.Singaram and PW-2 - V.Govindan, there had been a long standing enmity between these two families. The deceased - Chithirakannu was a supporter of PW-2. PW-1 and PW-3 to PW-7 are either relatives of PW-2 or close family friends. In other words, the prosecution party, viz., PW-1 to PW-7 belonged to one faction in the village. The accused party belonged to the other faction, opposed to the prosecution party. The factional rivalry was due to the above land dispute between the first accused and PW-2.

(3.) Based on the above materials, the Trial Court framed appropriate charges against the accused. All the accused pleaded innocence, and therefore, they were put on trial. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, as many as twenty two witnesses were examined and fifty three documents were exhibited, besides twenty one Material Objects. Out of the said witnesses, PW-1 to PW-7 are the eye-witnesses to the occurrence, more particularly, PW-2 to PW-7 are the injured eye - witnesses. When the above incriminating materials were put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, they denied the same as false. However, they did not choose to examine any witness on their side. But, they exhibited four documents on their side. Having considered the above materials, the Trial Court acquitted the accused Nos.4 to 7 and 9 from all the charges and convicted these accused Nos.1 to 3 and 8 alone under various penal provisions, as detailed in the first paragraph of this Judgment. That is how, the appellants are now before this Court with this Criminal Appeal.