SAKTHI @ SAKTHIVEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in Criminal Appeal No.425 of 2013 is the first accused, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No.348 of 2013 is the second accused and the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.352 of 2013 are the accused 3 and 5, in Sessions Case No.169 of 2011, on the file of the II Additional Sessions Judge, Erode. Including these appellants, there were a total number of 9 accused. The trial Court framed as many as six charges against all the nine accused as detailed below:

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:

(3.) Based on the above materials, the trail Court framed charges against the accused, as detailed in the first paragraph of this judgement. The accused denied the same as false. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution, as many as 22 witnesses were examined, 33 documents were marked, besides 12 material objects. Out of the said witnesses, P.Ws.1 to 6 were examined as eyewitnesses. They have spoken about the entire occurrence. P.Ws.2 and 7 have turned hostile and they have not supported the case of the prosecution in any manner and the other eyewitnesses have spoken about the entire occurrence. P.W.8 is the father of the deceased. He has stated that on hearing about the occurrence, he came to the place of occurrence and took the deceased as well as P.W.1 to the hospital. P.W.9 is a partner of the bar along with the deceased. He has not stated anything incriminating against the accused. P.W.10, Dr.Omprakash, has spoken about the treatment given to P.W.1 at the Erode Hospital, at 8.10 p.m. on the day of occurrence. P.W.11 has spoken about the treatment given to P.W.1 at Erode Trust Hospital, which is a private hospital, where P.W.1 was shifted at 11.00 p.m. on the same day. P.W.12 has spoken about the post -mortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.13 has spoken about the preparation of the observation mahazar and the rough sketch, at the place of occurrence and the recovery of blood stained earth and sample earth. P.W.14 is an employee of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. He has stated that at the place of occurrence there was no electricity failure, at the time of occurrence. P.W.15, the Head Clerk of the Judicial Magistrate Court, Erode, has stated that he forwarded the material objects for chemical examination. The report revealed that there were blood stains on all the material objects, including the knife. P.W.16 had spoken about the arrest of the first accused and the confession made by him and the recovery of M.O.1 -knife and the blood stained shirt, on his disclosure statement. P.W.17 has spoken about the arrest of the accused 2 and 3, their disclosure statements and the consequential recoveries of material objects. P.W.18 is a Constable attached to the respondent police, who has stated that he handed over the First Information Report to the Magistrate at 5.00 a.m. on 29.11.2010. P.W.19 is a yet another constable. He has stated that he took the dead body and handed over the same to the Doctor for post -mortem. P.W.20 has stated about the complaint made by P.W.1 and the registration of the case. P.Ws.21 and 22 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.