ANGAKUTTY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the second accused in S.C.No.73 of 2014, on the file of the I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Erode. The first accused was one Mr.Sekar @ Krishnamurthy. They stood charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By judgement dated 23.09.2016, the trial Court convicted both the accused under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life. However, no fine was imposed. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant is before this Court with this appeal.

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

(3.) Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed a loan charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against both the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the case, on the side of the prosecution as many as 13 witnesses were examined, 24 documents and 14 material objects were marked. Out of the said witnesses, P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer, has stated that he found the dead body on 19.06.2013 at 7.30 a.m. and made a complaint to the police on the same day at 9.00 a.m. P.W.2 has stated that on 18.6.2013, at around 7.00 to 7.30 p.m., he found these two accused and the deceased travelling in a motorcycle together on the Authani to Sathiyamangalam Main Road. P.W.3, the wife of the deceased has stated that she identified the dead body of the deceased. P.W.4 has stated that at around 8.00 p.m., on 18.6.2013, he found these two accused along with the deceased in a motorcycle at Kallipatti. P.W.5 has spoken about the preparation of observation mahazar and a rough sketch, at the place of occurrence. P.W.6 has spoken about the postmortem conducted and his final opinion regarding the cause of death. P.W.7, the head of the sniffer dog squad, has stated that the sniffer dog could not get any clue. P.W.8 has spoken about the forensic examination conducted on the material objects. P.W.9 has stated that he took the dead body and handed over the same to the doctor for post-mortem. P.W.10, a Constable, has stated that he typed out the statements of witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., during investigation, as instructed by P.W.12. P.W.11 has spoken about the registration of the case on the complaint of P.W.1. P.Ws.12 and 13 have spoken about the investigation done and the final report filed.