SIVA ALIAS SIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgement shall govern these two appeals viz., Crl.A.No.612/2008 by A1 and Crl.A.No.64/2009 by A3.

(2.) THESE two appellants along with four others stood charged and on trial they were found guilty as follows:

(3.) ADDED further learned counsel, insofar as the place of occurrence is concerned, according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place in front of the shop but according to P.W.3 he was actually attacked inside the shop and blood stains were also collected from inside the shop. All would go to show that the place of occurrence is not as one putforth by the prosecution. Further, once the place of occurrence would differ the so called eye witnesses cannot be believed. The learned counsel would further add, the medical opinion canvassed was not in favour of the prosecution. The recovery of material objects alleged to have been made pursuant to the confession statement is nothing but development made by the investigating agency in order to strengthen the prosecution case. Hence, it should have been rejected by the trial Court. In short, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused/appellants to which they are entitled to.