MANIKANDAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, three in number, stand convicted in S.C.No. 16 of 2003 on the file of Court of Sessions, Perambalur, under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life together with a fine of Rs.2,000/- on each carrying a default sentence. Hence, the present appeal. Heard N. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and V. Arul, learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) appearing for the State. To substantiate their case. the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 13 besides marking Exs.P.1 to P.19 and exhibiting M.Os.1 to 10.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that due to dispute over a property, at about 9.00 a.m. on 19.7.2002, when the deceased was in his agricultural land, A1 to A3 arrived at the scene, coming from near by garden land and indiscriminately out the deceased each having a weapon of offence, resulting in his death. P.Ws.1 and 2 are the younger brother and wife of Ganeasan, since deceased. P.W.1 in his evidence would state as hereunder:

(3.) N. Doraisamy, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would vehemently contend that P.Ws.1 and 2 primarily and P.W.3 couldn*t have seen the occurrence at all, since, according to them, the occurrence was around 9.00 a.m. and this evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 stands belied by the evidence of P.W.4, which shows that even at 8.00 a.m. on 19.7.2001, he came to know about the assault on Ganesan and the police had arrived at the scene at 11.30 a.m. In this context, learned counsel would submit that P.W.13*s evidence shows that the complaint was registered only at 11.00 a.m. on that day and therefore, the presence of the police at 11.30 a.m. in the scene of occurrence, as could be seen from the evidence of P.W.4 could only show that there should have been an earlier information to the police on the basis of which only, the police would have arrived at the scene. Therefore, the argument is that the evidence on record is not free from doubt and therefore, this Court has to necessarily set aside the judgment under challenge. V. Arul, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State would submit, in meeting these arguments, that this Court would not be in a position to pin the witnesses down to the time which they have mentioned as the occurrence time. The eye witnesses are rustic villagers and therefore, time conscience in their mind cannot be given undue importance. According to him, the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 is quite natural and convincing and therefore, there are no reasons at all as to why their evidence must be disbelieved.