GOPI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A-1 is the appellant, who has come forward with this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence imposed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri made in S.C.No.66 of 1998, dated 31.07.2000 convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C, and sentencing him to undergo rigourous imprisonment for a period of four years and imposing a fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months.

(2.) THERE are four accused in this case. A-1 has been charged for the offence under Section 304 Part-II I.P.C, and A-2 to A-4 have been charged for the offence under Section 302 r/w. 34 I.P.C. A-1 to A-4 have also been charged for the offence under Section 324 I.P.C. in respect of the injury said to have been caused to P.Ws.1 and 2. The learned trial Judge, disbelieving the prosecution case, acquitted A-2 to A-4 for the charges levelled against them and convicted and sentenced A-1, the appellant herein as stated above.

(3.) MR.K.Asokan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence. He made the following submissions:- The admitted version of the prosecution is that only the prosecution party are the aggressors. As A-4 was doing construction work in her vacant site, as she has succeeded in the Civil dispute pending between herself and her brother-the deceased and only the deceased along with his sons P.Ws.1, 2 and another son Solaiyan questioned the conduct of A-4, which resulted in a wordy quarrel and ultimately, A-4 sustained injury.