MURUGAIAH Vs. STATE THROUGH THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No. 188 of 2015, on the file of the Second Additional District Sessions Court, Thoothukudi. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. By Judgment dated 10.02.2016, the Trial Court has convicted the accused and sentenced him, as detailed below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_74_LAWS(MAD)12_2017_1.html</FRM> 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 would submit that in order to prove the alleged offence, the prosecution mainly relies on the evidence of PW-1, the father of the deceased. According to him, PW-1 is the only solitary eye-witness to the occurrence, but, highly interested. In such a situation, since PW-1 was a chance witness and highly interested, the prosecution should explain to the satisfaction of the Court as to what was the occasion for him to be present at the place of occurrence. Moreover, no independent witness was examined to speak about the occurrence. The evidence of PW-1 is corroborated by any other independent source. Thus, according to the learned counsel, the solitary eyewitness account of PW-1 ought to have been relied upon by the Trial Court. Moreover, PW-9, who signed in the complaint as attestor, has turned hostile and he has supported the case of the prosecution in any manner.