STATE Vs. MURUGESA ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent is the accused in S.C.No.25/2009 on the file of the Court of Special Judge constituted under Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Act), 1989 [ in short "SC/ST Act"] and he stood charged and tried for the commission of offences under Section 302 IPC and under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The trial Court, vide judgment dated 28.01.2010, has acquitted the respondent/accused for the commission of the said offences and challenging the legality of the said judgment, the State has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:

(3.) Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the occurrence took place in a public place at about 8.00 p.m. on 23.05.2008 and Pws.1 to 4 were chatting near the scene of occurrence and their testimonies corroborate with each other on material particulars and simply because all the witnesses deposed on similar lines, it cannot lead to the presumption that their testimonies are parrotlike version. It is the further submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/State that simply because PWs.1 to 4 belong to same caste as that of the accused, it cannot lead to the presumption that they were enimical to the respondent/accused and as per the contents of Accident Register/Ex.P10, the deceased said to have been stabbed by unknown persons. It is also contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that simply because there is no evidence to show that the area was illuminated, it cannot lead to the presumption that PWs.1 to 4 would not have seen the occurrence for the reason that the respondent/accused was also known to PWs.1 to 4. As regards arrest and recovery, it is the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that PW6 is a public servant and he has no axe to grind against the respondent/accused and the scientific evidence has also confirmed the fact that the deceased died on account of homicidal violence and simply because the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, the trial Court ought to have convicted and sentenced the respondent/accused adequately and prays for interference.