RAMARAJ Vs. INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appeal is directed against the Judgment in S.C.No.60/2003 on the file of the District Sessions Judge, Perambalur, wherein A-2/appellant was convicted and sentenced along with the first accused, under Sections 452, 324 and 302 I.P.C.

(2.) THE case came to be filed at the instance of the respondent herein against the 2nd accused/appellant and two others alleging, that all the three have made preparation for assaulting one Thangavel and his family members, trespassed into the Kattukottagai, farm house of Thangavel on 12.9.2002 at about 11.30 p.m., that all of them have assaulted Thangavel, his wife, their daughter in law-Jayalakshmi, that with the intention to commit murder, A-1 and A-2 assaulted Jayalakshmi over her head causing head injuries, that in view of the head injuries sustained, despite treatment, Jayalakshmi died on 18.9.2002 at about 6.00 p.m., that A-3 in furtherance of the common intention acted along with other two accused, that they have also criminally intimidated all the inmates of the house and therefore, they should be dealt with under Section 452, 326, 324, 302, 302 r/w 34 and 506(ii) I.P.C.

(3.) THE prosecution, though had let in evidence implicating A-3, and despite the eyewitnesses have spoken about the overt acts said to have been committed by him, aggrieved by the acquittal of A-3, has not preferred any appeal, questioning the correctness of the acquittal. A-2 alone had challenged the conviction and sentence in this appeal. In this view of the matter, we are called upon to decide, whether the conviction and sentence slapped upon A-2/appellant, is sustainable or not, whether the conviction is based upon unassailable legal evidence or it could be assailed because of the absence of the legal evidence. It seems, the third accused had been acquitted on false notion, not properly appreciating the evidence, which cannot be the sole consideration, for acquitting A-2, if it is further shown the acquittal is incorrect, though it is not challenged. In the same manner, only on the ground the conviction slapped upon A-1 has not been challenged, it is also not legally sound to say that the same result should visit upon A-2/appellant.