RAMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE convicted accused have preferred this appeal, Challenging the Judgment, dated 19.10.2004, made in S.C.No.116 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Salem.

(2.) THE appellant herein are the accused 1 and 2. THE first appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine with default sentence and also convicted under Section 201 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 7 years and also to pay fine with default sentence. THE second appellant has been convicted under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and also to pay fine with default sentence. Against the said conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, the appeal has been preferred.

(3.) MR.R.Srinivasan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/accused 1 and 2 contended that the prosecution has not established the guilt against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. According to the learned counsel, the trial court could not have relied on the evidence of P.W.9, the Tahsildar before whom the alleged confession statement was given by the second appellant. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor argued that the prosecution has established the guilt against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. According to him, the conviction of the trial court was based on oral and documentary evidence and that there is no infirmity in the Judgment.