STATE Vs. GUNASEELAN ALIAS GUNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 28.09.2003 between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m., the accused/respondent herein along with three other accused, who are juveniles, with a common intention to commit robbery and murder of the deceased, an old lady aged about 76 year, gained entry into her residence at Door No.95, Viswanathan Illam, Karpagam Street, Poompugar Nagar, Edayarpalayam, Coimbatore, where she was living lonely, under the guise of attending cable-TV line fault. ONe of the accused stood outside the residence as guard so as to ensure nobody is witnessing their acts while others went inside the residence. Two of the accused caught hold of the deceased and the respondent herein is said to have smothered and strangulated the deceased with her saree and further dashed her head against the floor, resulting in her death and thereafter, they robbed away the jewels on the person of the deceased as well as a sum of Rs.790/- available in the bureau; thereby, charges under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC., 392 read with 34 IPC. and Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu City Police Act, 1888, came to be framed. The case against the accused was separated and taken up by the trial court and as regards the juvenile accused, they were dealt with by the juvenile court. The prosecution, in its endeavour to bring home the guilt of the accused, examined PWs-1 to 11, marked Exs.P1 to P17 and produced MOs-1 to 14. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the defence. The learned Principal Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, who conducted the trial against the accused/respondent herein for the aforesaid charges in Sessions Case No.347 of 2004, by judgment dated 05.07.2005, ultimately held that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubts and so holding, acquitted the accused of all the charges by granting benefit of doubt under Section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, the present Appeal has been preferred by the State.

(2.) THE prosecution case, emerging from its evidentiary backdrop, is narrated concisely here-under:-

(3.) THERE is no doubt, as could be seen from the medical evidence, that this is a case of homicidal violence. Now, the issue to be determined is as to whether the trial court is justified in disbelieving the case of the prosecution and acquitting the accused by granting benefit of doubt in his favour.