OIKATTAN Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents 2 to 5 are the accused Nos.1 to 4 in S.C.No.23 of 2012 on the file of the learned IVth Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli. Accused Nos.1 and 2 stood charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the accused 3 and 4 stood charged for the offence under Section 302 r/w 114 IPC. By judgment dated 06.08.2012, the trial Court acquitted all the four accused. The appellant is the father of the deceased. He has come up with this appeal challenging the acquittal of the respondents 2 to 5.

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows;

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the reasons stated by the trial Court for acquitting the accused are not at all tenable and thus, the judgment of the trial Court is perverse. The learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through the reasons recorded by the trial Court for acquitting the accused, about which we would make reference during the further discussion in this judgment. He would further submit that the evidences of PWs.1 to 3 are quite natural, cogent and convincing. He would also submit that the presence of PWs.1 to 3 at the place of occurrence cannot be doubted. One of the reasons stated by the trial Court is that there was no sign of any plowing on the land, where the deceased was cut and there was also no sign of transplantation of crops. Referring to these reasoning of the trial Court, the learned counsel would submit that in the photograph taken at the place of occurrence, the tractor, which was driven by PW3, is found. He would further submit that PW3 was actually plowing in a nearby field which is also owned by PW1 and PWs.1 and 2 were in their field looking after the agricultural operations. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the presence of PWs.1 to 3 cannot be disbelieved and the veracity of these witnesses also cannot be doubted. The learned counsel would further submit that there is no delay in preferring the complaint, which also goes to assure the truthfulness of the allegation made in Ex.P1, complaint. The learned counsel would next submit that the trial Court, without appreciating these evidences in their proper perspective, acquitted all the accused. Therefore, according to him, the judgment of the trial Court is liable to be interfered with and the accused are liable to the convicted and sentenced accordingly.