GOPI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants, four in number, were tried along with one other accused, A-5 in S.C. No.613/03 on the file of the Addl. Court of Sessions (Fast Track Court No.2), Chennai. A-1 to A-5 were charged under Section 120-B IPC A-1 to A-4 were charged under Section 341 IPC A-1 to A-4 were charged under Section 302 IPC and A-5 was charged under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. THE trial court found A-1 to A-4 alone guilty under Sections 341 and 302 IPC for which they were sentenced to one month rigorous imprisonment for the former offence and life imprisonment for the latter with a fine of Rs.1,000/= carrying a default sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment. A-1 to A-5 were acquitted under Section 120-B IPC and A-5 was also acquitted under Section 302 read with 109 IPC. Hence, the appellants, A-1 to A-4, are before this Court in this appeal, challenging their conviction and sentence.

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

(3.) ASSAILING the conviction imposed on A-1 to A-4, Mr.S.Ashok Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants would, at the outset, contend that though P.W.s 1 to 4 are alleged to have been examined as eye witnesses to the occurrence, having regard to the various discrepancies found in their evidence, it is highly unbelievable that any of them could have witnessed the incident. According to the learned senior counsel, even assuming P.W.1 had witnessed the incident, as put forth by the prosecution, having regard to the variations in his statement before the court below as well as his statement before the doctor, P.W.5, which is found in Ex.P-2, the accident register, it is highly unsafe to act upon such evidence to find the appellants guilty and, therefore, the appellants are entitled for an acquittal. We heard the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, who fairly states that P.W.1 alone could be said to be an eye witness to the incident and even eschewing the evidence of P.W.s 2 to 4, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor contends that there is no reason to discredit the evidence of P.W.1.