N HARIHARAN ALIAS HARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMMON Judgment: sha15 and 75air 1970 Sc 1321 9 of 2004, the former fie latter by A-3, A-4, A-5, A-6, A-7, A-11 and A-14, who along wit-1a-10, A-12 and A-13 stood charged, tried, found guilty and awarded the punishment as follows: ecessary facts for the disposal of these appeals could be stated as follows:

(2.) THE case was committed to Court of Session and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the appellants and other accused, the prosecution examined 49 witnesses and relied on 116 exhibits and 58 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Sec. 313 of Cr. P. C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which they flatly denied as false. No defence witness was examined. On hearing the arguments advanced and looking into the materials available, the Court below took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt as against A-1 to A-7, A-11 and A-14 and recorded an order of acquittal of A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12 and A-13. Hence A-2 has preferred C. A. No. 715 of 2004 and others have preferred C. A. No. 759/2004. A-1 has not preferred any appeal from the judgment of the trial Court.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellant/a-2 in C. A. No. 715 of 2004, the learned Counsel Mr. G. Ravikumar would submit that totally 14 accused stood charged and tried before the trial Court out of whom A-1 to A-7, A-11 and A-14 were convicted and A-8, A-9, A-10, A-12 and A-13 were acquitted by the trial Court; that all the reasons which were applied for recording an order of acquittal to those accused were equally applicable to the appellant/a-2; that the trial Court has taken two different views on the two sets of accused, but on the same evidence; that on that ground, the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside; that according to P. W. 1, his brother Jayakumar was missing for a period of two months that was from 28. 8. 2001; but, he has given his complaint only on 14. 10. 2001 under Ex. P1; that P. W. 1 has lodged the second complaint on 6. 2. 2002 and the case was altered to Sec. 365 IPC; that the prosecution commenced its story by stating that there was a conspiracy hatched up among A-1, A-2 and A-3 to kill the deceased Jayakumar; but, it has miserably failed to prove the same either by direct evidence or by any circumstantial evidence; that the motive that was attributed to A-1 to murder the deceased Jayakumar was that he borrowed a sum of Rs. 2 lakhs from the deceased Jayakumar and repeatedly quarrel had taken place between them; but, even P. W. 1, the brother, P. W. 2, the mother, and P. W. 3 the wife of the deceased, nowhere have stated in their evidence that A-1 borrowed Rs. 2 lakhs from the deceased; that so long that fact is not proved, it can be well stated that the motive attributed to A-1 remained not proved; and that under the circumstances, there was no need for any conspiracy to be hatched up by A-1 along with A-2 and A-3.