G RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused Raj Kumar has come forward with this appeal challenging the Judgment passed by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai dated 26.04.2007 in S.C.No.487/2006 convicting the appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC and sentencing him to life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- carrying with the default sentence of three months simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case as projected by the prosecution are as follows:-

(3.) MR. M. Muthusami, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the prosecution has not established the guilt of the accused by adducing clear and acceptable evidence. It is contended that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have witnessed the occurrence as they were admittedly residing in the upstairs of the apartment and on information given by P.W.3, they came down and said to have witnessed the occurrence and P.W.3 has not supported the prosecution case and he turned hostile. It is submitted that P.Ws.1 and 2 could not have been present at the time of actual occurrence and as such, the prosecution has not come forward with the origin of the occurrence. It is further submitted that both P.Ws.1 and 2 are the father and brother of the deceased and as such, they are the interested witnesses and their evidence cannot be accepted without any independent corroboration. It is contended that the prosecution also failed to prove the motive against the accused to attack the deceased as the witnesses, examined to speak about the motive, viz., P.Ws.3 and 4, turned hostile. The learned Senior Counsel without prejudice to his earlier contention further submitted that even as per the admitted case of the prosecution the actual occurrence was preceded by a wordy quarrel and as such, the entire occurrence took place due to the wordy quarrel without any premeditation and therefore, the accused could not be held for the offence under section 302 IPC.