STATE Vs. PERUMALDOSS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCUSED-1 and 3/R-1 and R-3 are husband and wife and the 2nd accused/R-2 is their son-in-law. On the allegation that the accused, due to land dispute between A-1 and the deceased and the case resulting in favour of the deceased, with an intention to finish off the deceased, on 06.10.1994 at 8.45 P.M., went to the canteen run by one Balu where the deceased was sitting and, at the instigation of A-3, A-2, armed with aruval, cut the deceased indiscriminately on the left chest and rib and A-1 on the head, resulted in his death; charge u/s.302 read with 34 IPC. was framed against A-1, 302 IPC. against A-2 and 302 read with 109 IPC. as against A-3. By order dated 15.06.2001, passed in Sessions Case No.136 of 1998, learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tuticorin, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, acquitted them under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. As against the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, the State has preferred the present Criminal Appeal.

(2.) IN order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 27, marked Exs.P.1 to P.37 and produced M.Os.1 to 21. Neither oral nor documentary evidence has been let in on the side of the defence.

(3.) A cut injury lateral to the left nipple 3 cm x 1 cm x extending deep to the structures.