C VENKATESAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole accused, Venkatesan, has come forward with this appeal challenging the judgment dated 22.03.2007 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpet, in S.C.No.553 of 2004 convicting him for the offence under Section 341 IPC and sentencing him to undergo one month simple imprisonment and convicting him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment and also imposing a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE prosecution version, as unfolded through the evidence during the course of trial, is as follows:

(3.) MR. V. Gopinath, learned senior counsel appearing for the accused/appellant vehemently contended that the prosecution has miserably failed to establish the guilt of the accused by adducing clear and cogent evidence. The learned senior counsel has made the following submissions : (1)The evidence of the eye-witnesses, P.Ws.1 and 3 suffers from infirmities and inconsistencies and as such their evidence is unacceptable. (2)P.W.3 admitted in his cross-examination that he was examined at 1.00 a.m. on 03.11.2003, but the investigating officer, P.W.12 stated that P.W.3 was examined by him on 05.11.2003. P.W.3 further stated in the cross-examination that the police came to the scene at 5.30 p.m. and he was present at that time for 10 minutes and thereafter he was taken to the police station and kept at the police station till the next day. The name of P.W.3 is also not mentioned in the report, Ex.P.1. Therefore, P.W.3 must have given evidence only due to the compulsion of the police. (3)P.W.1 stated that on the date of occurrence, he took the deceased in his TVS Super XL two wheeler to meet one Narayanan at Balaji Nagar and at that time, the accused intercepted them by coming in a cycle and cut the deceased with the knife, M.O.1. But P.W.4 stated that on the date of occurrence, he went to the Nanganallur Post Office and met the deceased at 12.00 noon and at that time P.W.1 was standing near the deceased and therefore, P.W.1 could not have been present at Balaji Nagar, the scene of occurrence and the occurrence could not have been taken place at the time and in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. (4)In the report, Ex.P.1, it is stated by P.W.1 that the accused cut and murdered the deceased. But, P.W.1 in his evidence stated that after the accused cutting the deceased, he went to the police station and gave the report and thereafter, he came to know that the deceased died and her body was kept at the Chrompet hospital mortuary. Therefore, the First Information Report must have been prepared subsequently and not at the time as alleged by the prosecution.