PERUMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern the above four criminal appeals. Criminal Appeal No.1021 of 2006 is filed by A-1, A-4 and A-5, Criminal Appeal No.278 of 2007 is filed by A-2, Criminal Appeal No.256 of 2007 is filed by A-3 and Criminal Appeal No.489 of 2007 is filed by A-6.

(2.) ALL these appeals challenge the judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore made in S.C.No.264 of 2005, whereby these appellants/accused stood charged under Sections 458, 395 and 396 IPC, tried, found guilty under Sections 396 and 458 IPC and awarded life imprisonment each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to undergo 8 months R.I. under Section 396 IPC and 10 years R.I. each and to pay a fine of Rs.2000/- each, in default to undergo 8 months R.I. under Section 458 IPC and they were acquitted of the charge under Section 395 IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(3.) ADVANCING argument on behalf of the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.1021 of 2006, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer that it has miserably failed to prove its case or bring any nexus between the accused and the crime in question that the prosecution relied on the circumstances, namely P.W.9 saw A-1, A-6 and others at Veerapandi junction at about 3.00 p.m. on 22.6.2004 that the occurrence has taken place, according to the prosecution, between 3.00 a.m. and 5.00 a.m. on 23.6.2004 that so far as P.W.9 was concerned, he was examined and his statement was recorded only on 2.7.2004, but his statement was sent to the Court after a long time that it is pertinent to point out that he has given statement only after the arrest of A-1 on 2.7.2004 that till that time, he did not speak to anybody that he saw A-1 and others on 22.6.2004 that at the time of inquest, it is shown that he was present that if to be so, naturally one would expect him to tell the fact that he met the accused, but he has not done so that apart from that P.W.9 continued to be in employment of the said Knitting Company and hence he came forward to oblige the said company in order to connect the accused with the crime and under these circumstances, his evidence could not be taken into consideration.