MANIVANNAN AND ORS. Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A 1 to A3 in S.C. No. 372/2005 on the file of the learned Additional Sessions Judge,(Fast Track Court No. III), Vridhachalam are the appellants.

(2.) APPELLANTS were prosecuted in the said case in the said court. Ultimately, they were convicted and sentenced as under:

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would submit that there are many material contradictions in the evidence of PW.1. The appellants were total stranger to him. In such circumstances, giving their names and other particulars in the F.I.R. is highly doubtful. His cross examination revealed that he did not know the contents of Ex.P1, which was stated to have been written by Veerappan, the bus conductor. But, Veerappan has not been examined. PW2, who is relative of the bus owner PW4 is a got up witness. Nothing about his presence in Ex.P1. The Investigating Officer admits that he did not obtain any M.V.I report from the Motor Vehicle Inspector as regards damages in the bus. There are so many infirmities in the prosecution case. Prosecution failed to establish the charges leveled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.