STATE AND ORS. Vs. KAMARAJ AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Crl. A. No. 143 of 2009 and Crl. R.C. No. 596 of 2009 have been preferred against the judgment of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur, passed in S.C. No. 156 of 2007 on 03.04.2009 acquitting the respondents of offences u/s. 302 and 324 r/w. 34 IPC. The case of the prosecution is that P.Ws. 1 and 3, respectively, are brother and sister of the deceased. There was a dispute over property between P.W.-3 and the accused, owing to which the accused assaulted P.W.-3 and when the same was questioned by P.W.-1 and the deceased, the accused assaulted the deceased with a wooden log and caused his death on 14.04.2007 at about 03.30 p.m. In the said attack, P.W.-1 lost his right eye. P.W.-1 preferred a complaint [Ex. P1] on 14.04.2007 at about 06.00 p.m. before P.W.-11, Inspector of Police, Jayamkondam Police Station, who registered a case in Crime 80 of 2007 for offences u/s. 324 and 302 IPC. Upon completion of investigation and filing of charge sheet, the case was taken up on file in S.C. No. 156 of 2007 on the file of learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur.

(2.) To substantiate its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws. 1 to 12, marked Exs. P. 1 to P20 and MOs. 1 to 7. None were examined on behalf of respondents, however, one exhibit was marked. On questioning u/s. 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied the charges. Learned trial Judge, on appreciation of the evidence adduced by the prosecution, held that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and rendered a finding of acquittal.

(3.) Heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor, learned counsel for revision petitioner and learned counsel for respondents/accused as also perused the records.