SETTU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant / accused challenging the Judgment, dated 30.08.2017, passed in S.C.No.118 of 2013, by the learned Sessions Judge, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore, convicting the accused under section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. The learned Trial Court Judge found not guilty of the accused under Section 506(ii) I.P.C. and acquitted him under section 235(1) of Cr.P.C., 1973

(2.) The brief facts of the prosecution case, are as follows:-

(3.) Mr.V. Parthiban, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the evidence of P.Ws.1,3 and 4 is highly unreliable. They could be an eye witnesses. The F.I.R. registered in this case is an after thought and came to be filed after police commenced the investigation. Therefore, entire prosecution is highly doubtful in the case. He would further submit that P.W.7 and P.W.8 Station Master and Points Man found the dead body at about 10.25 p.m. They never seen any of the eye witnesses in the place of occurrence. These facts clearly make the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 4 unreliable. Hence the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is highly doubtful and the F.I.R. is an after thought and hit by section 162 of Cr.P.C., 1973 Therefore, the judgment of the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence. Hence he prayed for allowing the appeal.