J. MURUGANANDHI Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the accused Nos. 1 and 2 in S.C. No. 71 of 2012, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Pudukkottai. The Trial Court framed as many as two charges as detailed below.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows: - -

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Trial Court ought not to have given undue weightage for the delay in preferring the complaint and also forwarding the First Information Report to the Court, as such delay has been explained away by the prosecution. The learned counsel would further submit that PW -1 and PW -2 are the injured eye -witnesses, whose presence cannot be disputed at all. He would further submit that PW -1 and PW -2 have clearly spoken about the entire occurrence. But, the Trial Court has rejected their evidences without assigning sufficient reasons. The learned counsel would further submit that the evidences of PW -1 and PW -2 are duly corroborated by the medical evidence. He would further submit that there is no flaw in the investigation also and thus, according to the learned counsel, the Judgment of the Trial Court is liable to be interfered with and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/accused should be convicted under the charges framed against them.