MADAVAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are A. 1 to A. 4. The first appellant was convicted for the offences under ss. 302 and 324, I. P. C. (two counts ). The second appellant was convicted for the offence under S. 324 (two counts ). The third appellant was convicted for the offence under S. 323, I. P. C. (two counts) and the fourth appellant was convicted for the offences under Ss. 323 and 325, I. P. C. Challenging the same, this Appeal has been filed.

(2.) THE brief facts, leading to the conviction of the appellants, are as follows :

(3.) MR. R. Srinivasan, learned counsel for the appellants would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the entire prosecution case would bristle with the infirmities, as in this case, the witnesses have not come out with truth. According to the learned counsel for the appellants, the investigation has not been conducted properly, both by P. W. 17 and P. W. 19. In the absence of any explanation for injuries on the accused, which are serious in nature, the prosecution case cannot be accepted and as such, the accused are entitled to be given the benefit of doubt and consequently, they have to be acquitted.