RAMESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern these three appeals in C. A. Nos. 1300, 1311 and 1421 of 2003.

(2.) OUT of the seven accused, who faced trial in S. C. No. 137 of 2002 on the file of the Sessions Division, Kanyakumari, A-3, A-7 and A-2 have brought forth these three appeals respectively. These accused along with four others stood charged, found guilty and awarded punishments as follows: CHARGES AND CONVICTION:

(3.) ADVANCING his arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel in his sincere attempt of assailing the judgment, would submit that in the instant case, there were three eyewitnesses; that all these three witnesses were only planted witnesses; that apart from that, they are closely related; that P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased; that P. W. 2 is the co-brother of the deceased; that P. W. 3 is the brother of P. W. 1; that in the instant case, one witness, who, according to the prosecution, was also an informant to the Police, namely Natarajan, the father of the deceased, died pending the trial, and hence, he could not be examined; that so far as P. Ws. 1 to 3 are concerned, as they were close relatives, their evidence could not be believed for more reasons than one; that as far as P. W. 1 was concerned, she was not an eyewitness to any part of the occurrence namely either kidnapping or the occurrence of murder; that she was only informed about the same; that it is pertinent to point out that the house of P. W. 1 is situated within 100 feet from the petty shop of her father-in-law Natarajan; that according to her, A-1 to A-4 came in two motorbikes, and her husband was taken from the house; that even according to her evidence, they were on inimical terms in the past; that if to be so, when her husband was taken by A-1 to A-4, she would not have kept quiet; but, curiously she did not come forward to give any complaint or to speek about any fact till the next morning; that as regards P. W. 2, he, according to the prosecution, was a witness, who actually saw A-1 attacking Natarajan with a knife and also A-1 and A-2 kidnapping the deceased forcibly in the Ambassador Car driven by A-7, and A-3 and A-4 also followed them; that P. W. 2's evidence was thoroughly artificial; that he was none else than the co-brother of the deceased; that if to be so, having seen such an occurrence, the natural conduct would be immediately rushing to the house of P. W. 1 to inform about the same or to proceed to the place of occurrence, when his co-brother was being kidnapped from the place, or to go to the Police Station to lodge a complaint in that regard; but, he has not done any one of these acts, and he went away and kept quiet till he was examined by the police on the next day; that the conduct of P. W. 2 at that juncture was not only contrary to nature, but also unnatural; that he came forward to speak about the fact of kidnapping only on the next day; and that under the circumstances, P. W. 2's evidence could not be given any credence at all.