MUTHU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant herein was the first accused before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, in S.C. No. 9 of 1987 having been convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 324 Indian Penal Code to undergo life imprisonment and also rigorous imprisonment for six months respectively, to run concurrently, for having caused the death of one Arumugam and simple injury to P.W.1 From the testimony of 13 witnesses examined on the prosecution side, the following facts would emerge:

(2.) After the committal of this case to the Court of Sessions, the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, framed charges against this Appellant and his wife, the second Appellant, for the offences under Section 302 read with Sections 109, 302 and 324 Indian Penal Code. The accused pleaded not guilty of the charges and wanted trial of the case. Therefore, the prosecution produced 13 witnesses to prove their case. After die evidence of these witnesses, the Appellant was questioned under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure to explain the incriminating circumstances found against him. The Appellant denied the complicity in the crime and said that as the deceased and one Kalimuthu were functioning in two different factions, the prosecution party, suspecting that he is closely associated with Kalimuthu, has implicated him in this case falsely and he has nothing to do with die crime. He did not examine any witness on his side. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai, after taking into consideration of the entire evidence, had found that the charge against the second Appellant was not proved and therefore, acquitted her of the charges but has found that the charge of murder under Section 302 Indian Penal Code and also the charge under Section 324 Indian Penal Code have been established against this Appellant and therefore, finding him guilty of the said offence, inflicted the punishments, which are mentioned above. Hence, the Appellant has come forward with this appeal.

(3.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Mr. Alagarsamy took us through the evidence of the witnesses. He placed four aspects before us to support his contention that the Appellant could not be the culprit in this offence. He also contended that the Court below, without taking into consideration of the falsity of the evidence, which has been accepted in so far as the second accused is concerned, has failed to accept it as against this Appellant and therefore, the findings have to be set aside. The points of controversy raised by him are, firstly, the material witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1 and 2, are the close friends of the deceased and the father of the deceased and as they are interested witnesses, they cannot be relied upon when especially the independent witnesses, who were available there, have not been chosen to be examined in the Court, secondly the improbability for the presence of P.W.2 thirdly, the improbability of the registration of the complaint Ex.P.15 at the time mentioned by the prosecution and the possibility for creation of this complaint at a later point of time after the death of the deceased Arumugam and fourthly, the inconsistency in the evidence as between the ocular testimony and the medical evidence.