GANESAPANDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a typical case where the cherished principles or golden thread of proof beyond reasonable doubt which runs through the web of our law should not be stretched morbidly to embrace every hunch, hesitancy and degree of doubt.

(2.) THE present appeal is by the convicted accused, viz., A-1 to A-5 in Sessions Case No.461 of 2005 on the file of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chennai. In the said case before the learned Sessions Judge, totally nine accused were tried on various charges including the charge of murder and the learned Sessions Judge, by the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2006, while acquitting A-6 to A-9 for the offences levelled against them, convicted the appellants/A-1 to A-5 for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 I.P.C. and sentenced each one of them to imprisonment for life. A-1 to A-4 were also convicted for the offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and A-5 was convicted under Section 147 I.P.C., for which he was sentenced to six month rigorous imprisonment. All the accused were exonerated from the charge framed under Section 120-B I.P.C.

(3.) 1. The main argument advanced by the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants is that inasmuch as many of the witnesses having turned hostile, the prosecution had to wholly rely upon the solitary evidence of P.W.1, who is none else than the daughter of the deceased, and whose evidence with regard to the occurrence has several infirmities and hence, the prosecution has not proved its case by adducing clear and cogent evidence. 5.2. While pointing out the infirmities in the evidence of P.W.1, the learned senior counsel made the following submissions: