GYANCHAND Vs. STATE OF MADRAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted for offences under sections 302 and 201 I. P. C. Challenging the same, this appeal has been filed.

(2.) A few facts leading to the conviction of the accused are as follows:

(3.) MR. K. Doraisami, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant took us through the entire materials available on record and contended that the circumstances available in this case would not be sufficient to connect the accused with the crime and as such, he is liable to be acquitted. He pointed out that though P. W. 7 is the core witness in this case as projected by the prosecution, he has not been examined initially and he has been examined only one day later by P. W. 13, who took up further investigation and not by P. W. 12. The material witness Kumar, who took the accused out of the well along with P. W. 7, has not been examined. P. W. 2, the servant of P. W. 7, is an interested witness, since he is working under P. W. 7 and therefore, his evidence cannot be relied upon. The hair found in the fist of the deceased has not been sent for chemical examination, which would clearly indicate that the prosecution has not compared the hair found in the fist of the deceased with the hair of the accused. On the above noted facts, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the benefit of doubt has to be given to the accused and as such, he is liable to be acquitted.