LAWS(MAD)-2017-11-74

SOORAMUTHU Vs. STATE

Decided On November 07, 2017
Sooramuthu Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C. No. 420 of 2011, on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. He stood charged for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 17.02.2011, the Trial Court convicted the accused and sentenced him, as detailed below:- Section of Law Sentence of imprisonment Fine amount 302 IPC To undergo imprisonment for life. Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three months. 506(ii) IPC To undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. No fine. The sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has come up with this Criminal Appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as put forth by its witnesses, is consciously narrated below:-

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that there are lot of contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which would go to the very root of the case of the prosecution and those contradictions would go to show that the occurrence would not have taken place, as it is alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant further submitted that PW-2 to PW-4 would not have been present at the place of occurrence and their presence is doubtful. PW-3 and PW-4 are school going children. They were studying eleventh and tenth standard. The alleged occurrence took place on 31.05.2010, viz., Monday, which was a working day and hence, the presence of PW-3 and PW-4 at the place of occurrence is doubtful. In this regard, the learned counsel has relied on the cross-examination of PW-3, in which she has stated that after vacation, the school re-opened on 14.05.2010 and further she has stated that from May 14th onwards, she was going to the school. The place of occurrence is Melakottai, which is 20 Kilometres away from the school. Thus, according to the learned counsel, PW-3 and PW-4 would have been tutored by somebody to depose falsely against the accused. So far as PW-2 is concerned, according to the learned counsel, she was married and living along with her husband in a different place and as such, her presence at the house of the deceased, on the date of occurrence, is also highly doubtful.