KOZHI ALIAS KASI MURUGAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern these three appeals in c. A. Nos. 502, 563 and 633 of 1998.

(2.) C. A. No. 502/98 is filed by A-3 and A-4, and c. A. No. 563/98 is filed by A-1 and A-5, while C. A. No. 633/98 is filed by A-2, in a case of murder, where the appellants/accused stood charged as below: (i) A-1, A-3, A-4 and A-5 were charged under Sec. 147 of i. P. C. (ii) A-2 was charged under Sec. 148 of I. P. C. (iii) A-3 was charged under Sec. 449 of I. P. C. (iv) A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 were charged under Sec. 449 read with 149 of I. P. C. (v) A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 were charged under Sec. 302 of i. P. C. (vi) A-3 was charged under Sec. 302 read with 149 of i. P. C.

(3.) IT was further added by the learned Senior Counsel that the prosecution wanted to rely on the evidence of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; that so far as the evidence of P. W. 3 was concerned, he had turned hostile, and hence, no useful purpose could be served; that so far as P. W. 4 is concerned, from his evidence, it could be seen that he came to the place of occurrence only subsequently; that as regards P. W. 5, his evidence could not be believed, since it does not show the nexus of the accused to the crime in question, and then, what was available for the prosecution was the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2; that so far as P. Ws. 1 and 2 are concerned, P. W. 1 was shown to be a very close friend of the deceased, and P. W. 2 was the brother-in-law of the deceased; that their testimony are interested one; that if the test of careful scrutiny is applied, then it could be well seen that their evidence should not have been relied on by the lower Court; that apart from that, the prosecution came with the motive; and that not only the motive was flimsy, but also the motive has not been proved before the trial Court.