KASINATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are three in number, who brought forth this appeal from the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Villupuram in Sessions case No.160 of 2000. THEse appellants along with two others stood charged and tried as follows: Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant 5 stood charged under section 147 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellants 1 to 4 stood charged under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant 5 stood charged under section 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) APPELLANTS 1 to 4 were acquitted of the first charge under section 148 of the Indian Penal Code. Appellant 5 was acquitted of the charge under section 147 of Indian Penal Code. APPELLANTS 1 to 3 were convicted under section 302 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code for which they were directed to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- carrying a default sentence of rigorous imprisonment for six months, while the fourth appellant was acquitted of the said charge. Appellant 5 was acquitted of the charge under section 302 r/w 149 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, aggrieved over the judgment of the trial Court, accused 1 to 3 have brought forth this appeal.

(3.) ADDED further the learned counsel that though the first information report was given at 10.00 am, it has reached the Court at 01.45 pm and it is more pertinent to point out that the police station and the Court of the Judicial Magistrate are in the same compound. Therefore, this delay has also not been explained. ADDED further the learned counsel that the entry in the General diary at the time when the complaint was given shows that a case was registered, but the details regarding the place of occurrence and the name of the person who died, are not found. If that be so, the first information report that is before the Court is not the actual first information report and this would go to show that P.Ws.1 to 3 could not have witnessed the occurrence and they could have seen the dead body after a long time. The learned counsel also submitted that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution. Under the circumstances, the lower Court ought to have acquitted the accused and seek for an acquittal in the hands of this Court.