R MAHESH Vs. STATE REP BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Accused Nos.1 to 4, 5&7 and 9, on the file of the learned Sessions Judge, Mahalir Neethimandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Thoothukudi, Thoothukudi District, have come up with Crl.A[MD]Nos.313 of 2015, 8 of 2016, 364 of 2015, 322 of 2015, 13 of 2016 and 204 of 2016, challenging the Judgment dated 04.09.2015. The State has come up with Crl.A[MD]No.458 of 2016, challenging the acquittal of Accused Nos.6 to 10 u/s.302 r/w. 149 IPC. The Trial Court framed as many as six charges, as detailed below.

(2.) The prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows:

(3.) It is curious to note that neither the State nor the de-facto complainant has filed any appeal as against the acquittal recorded by the trial Court in respect of the charge under Section 120(B). Learned Senior Counsel Mr.P.Gopinath for Mr.P.Andiraj, appearing for A1 and learned Counsel appearing for other appellants submitted that the entire prosecution rests on the sole evidence of P.W.12, the husband of the deceased. Though, alleged occurrence took place on 02.01.2012, at 09:30 p.m., the FIR has been filed belatedly and the same has reached the Court with inordinate delay which remains unexplained. In the First Information Report, P.W.12 gave a specific overt act only against the four accused. Whereas before the evidence, he has taken a contrary stand and stated that nine accused came in three Autos which is contradictory to the earlier version of P.W.12 in the FIR. Further, there is no whisper about A10 neither in the FIR nor in the evidence.