(1.) THE appellants are the accused 1,3 and 4 in S.C. No. 23 of 2011 on the file of the learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Madurai. Including these accused, there were totally six accused in the case. There were as many as two charges framed against them. The first charge was under Section 120(B) IPC against all the 6 accused. The 2 nd charge was against all the 6 accused under Section 302 IPC. By judgment dated 08.04.2013, the trial Court acquitted the accused 5 and 6. The trial Court convicted the accused 1 to 4 as follows:
(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(3.) THE first and foremost ground raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the original FIR, in this case, has been suppressed and in its place, Ex.P1 has been substituted and therefore, the entire case of the prosecution is to be doubted and rejected. In order to substantiate this contention, the learned counsel would submit that P.W.18 the Sub Inspector of Police has stated that on receiving the intimation from the hospital, he went to the hospital, where he found P.W.1 and received the written complaint Ex.P1 from P.W.1. But, according to P.W.1 during cross examination, he has stated that after 1A hours of the occurrence, he went to the police station, where he made a written complaint in the presence of 10 of his people. The learned counsel would next contend that the trial Court has acquitted the accused 5 and 6 disbelieving the evidences of P.Ws.1 to 7 and therefore, applying the same yardstick, all the accused should also be acquitted. The learned counsel would next contend that the medical evidence also does not corroborate the eye witness account. Finally, he would contend that the occurrence would not have happened, as it is alleged by the prosecution, as the narration of occurrence is unnatural. For these reasons, the learned counsel would pray for acquittal.