V. ARULDOSS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arising out of the judgment dated 11.01.2011 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court -II, Tindivanam, in S.C. No. 260 of 2010, has been preferred by the sole appellant who after having been convicted for the offence under section 304(2) IPC was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.

(2.) THE facts disclosed from the prosecution case are as follows

(3.) MR . D. Selvaraju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that even according to the prosecution, the occurrence took place in front of one Puniyakodi's lathe shop but the said witness has not been examined before Court though his statement was recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation. The learned counsel would submit that an adverse inference should be drawn against the prosecution. He would submit that the non -examination of the material witness Puniyakotti would only show that the incident has occurred not as projected by the prosecution that is why the prosecution has withheld the material evidence. Learned counsel would further submit that P.W. 12 who has been examined before Court at the fag end of the trial could not have witnessed the occurrence as even according to him, he had come out only on hearing the sound. Learned counsel also pointed out that his house is not shown in the rough plan. He would further submit that if P.W. 2 Ramesh is residing in the close vicinity of the place of occurrence then the Investigating Officer would not have omitted to note down the location of his house in the rough plan.