PALANIAMMAL Vs. STATE REP BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts:-

(2.) When the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused, she would state that evidence against her are false. No defence witness has been examined.

(3.) The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / accused is that: a) there is no intention on the part of the accused to commit the offence of murder; b) the genesis of the occurrence has been suppressed by the prosecution; c) the presence of P.Ws.3 and 4 in the place of occurrence is highly doubtful and they could not have been the eye-witnesses to the occurrence; d) the medical evidence does not show that the injuries allegedly caused by the accused could have been the cause for death; e) the investigation is a tainted one as it does not explain the contradictions between the complaint and the evidence of the defacto complainant; and f) the finding of guilt is unsustainable as the findings are based on no evidence and hence, it is perverse.