SAMUTHIRAN Vs. STATE, REPRESENTED THROUGH INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.22 of 2003, on the file of the learned Additional District Sessions Judge, Dindigul District. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 22.02.2013, the Trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him, as detailed below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_301_LAWS(MAD)11_2017_1.html</FRM> <FRM>JUDGEMENT_301_LAWS(MAD)11_2017_1.html</FRM>

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

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in order to prove the alleged offence, the prosecution mainly relies on the evidences of PW-1 and PW-2. According to him, PW-2 was residing two kilometers away from the house of PW-1 and thus, her presence, at the time of occurrence, is highly doubtful. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that PW-1 and PW-2 have categorically stated that the deceased did not take food in the morning. PW-2, in her chief-examination has stated that she and the deceased went to the nearby shop only for the purpose of purchasing grocery items to prepare morning food. While they were returning home, the occurrence took place and the grocery items were found scattered at the place of occurrence. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant further submitted that PW-14, the Investigating Officer, has stated that had it been true that the grocery items were found scattered at the place of occurrence, he would have noted the same in the observation mahazer. Thus, according to the learned Senior Counsel, the evidence given by PW-2 that she accompanied the deceased to the grocery shop and while they were returning home, the occurrence took place cannot be believed and the very presence of PW-2 at the place of occurrence is false.