(1.) THE appellants, hereinafter referred to as the accused for the sake of convenience, have preferred the above appeal against the conviction and sentence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Dindigul Anna Diustrict in Sessions Case No. 85 of 1995.
(2.) THE facts of the case are as follows: -
(3.) LEARNED senior counsel Mr. V.K. Muthusamy arguing on behalf of the appellants submits that the Trial Court ought not have given credence to the interested testimony of P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W.3 and that their evidence does not corroborate the circumstances and the probabilities of the case. He submits that P.W.1 to P.W.3 could not have witnessed the occurrence and it is highly doubtful whether the recoveries have been made as set out by the prosecution and whether the occurrence had taken place as put forth by the prosecution. According to him, there is considerable doubt as to the involvement of the accused in the offence, the benefit of which must go to them. In the alternative, learned senior counsel pleaded that the admitted injury which resulted in the death of the deceased was not intended to cause death of the accused. According to him, the injury was not sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death. He submits that considering the nature and the intention that could be attributed to the accused, they cannot be charged for the offence under Section 302, I.P.C. He also pleaded that even according to Ex.P.1, the deceased was in a mood of frustration and had acted in a manner unbecoming of him and this alone should have resulted in Chinnapappa raising the alarm and the accused, thinking that he had molested their sister, had attacked the deceased in a fit of anger and therefore, according to him, this is a clear case of attack without any pre -meditation. In the above circumstances, he submits that the conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. against the accused, in any event, cannot be sustained and prays for allowing the appeal.