LAWS(MAD)-2008-7-449

MYSOORAN ALIAS KANDASAMY Vs. STATE

Decided On July 08, 2008
MYSOORAN ALIAS KANDASAMY Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Salem, dated 17.06.2005 made in S.C.No.354 of 2004 convicting the appellants, A-1 and A-2, under Section 341 IPC and sentencing them to undergo one month simple imprisonment and convicting them under Sections 302 r/w 34 IPC and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also convicting them under Section 506 (ii) IPC and sentencing them to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment.

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

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt by adducing clear and consistent evidence. It is contended that the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 2, is unbelievable and unacceptable. It is contended that P.W.1, son of the deceased, has not supported the prosecution as he has not implicated A-1 and A-2 and P.W.1 has disowned his report said to have been given to the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.3. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that P.W.1 has implicated only A-1 in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by the Magistrate and he has admitted in his cross-examination that only due to the threat by the police, he has given such a statement before the Magistrate implicating A-1. THE learned counsel would further submit that the other eye-witness, P.W.2, has stated in his statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. to the effect that he was not aware as to how the deceased died and he received the information about the death of the deceased through A-2 and therefore, the present version of P.W.2 before the Court is unbelievable and unacceptable. It is contended that P.W.2 has admitted that he has not informed anyone though he knew the Village Administrative Officer, P.W.3 nor he has given any report to the police.