THENALI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, five in number, have challenged the judgment of the District and Sessions Division, Thiruvannamalai, made in S.C.No.59 of 2002, whereby, the appellants/accused stood charged as follows: -

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated thus: -

(3.) IN order to substantiate the case, the prosecution has relied on the direct evidence of P.Ws.1 to 4, who, according to the prosecution, were the eye witnesses. Now at this juncture, it is necessary to point out that since these witnesses are close relatives, the test of careful scrutiny must be applied before accepting their evidence. According to P.W.1, it was he, who gave the information to P.W.8, Head Constable, at the earliest point of time, as a result of which, Ex.P-1 has come into existence. When Ex.P-1 is scrutinised, at the first column, it speaks about the number of accused, who are the five appellants. Though it narrates the incident, it does not reveal actually which accused was holding which weapon and in which manner the occurrence took place. It is to be remembered that P.W.1 was an eye witness. There is all possibility for him to speak about the occurrence. But he has not spoken so.