STANLY BAI REBERA Vs. RAYAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PROSECUTION witness No.1 in S.C.No.93 of 1995 on the file of Additional Sessions Judge, Nagercoil, has preferred the revision aggrieved against the order of acquittal dated 30.8.1996.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution in brief is as follows: P.W.2 is selling illicit arrack at Pozhiyur. For the purpose of consumption of illicit liquor, the accused as well as the deceased Vergeese used to come there On 2.2.1992 at about 10.30 p.m. as usual, the accused and deceased came there for the purpose of consuming arrack and after consumption, there was quarrel among themselves, P.W.2 intervened, but, however, the accused, who was in possession of the torch light, assaulted with the same light on the chest, cheek and head of the said Vergeese. P.W.3 also came there and P.W.2 instructed P.W.3 to take the said Vergeese to his home. THE injured also accompanied by P.W.3 and proceeded to a distance of about 10 feet. Subsequently, Vergeese left the place, saying that he wants to attend the calls of nature. P.W.3 was also standing at a distance, THE accused followed them and later P.W.2 also went in that way and she heard the alarm of Vergeese. P.Ws.2 and 3 requested the accused, not to kill the said Vergeese. THEreupon, the accused even threatened P.Ws.2 and 3 not to tell about this incident. P.Ws.2 and 3 went to their houses out of fear.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the first respondent contended that the case is only resting upon circumstantial evidence. P.Ws.2 and 3 are not actual witnesses to the offence and they speak about the earlier part of the incident. THEy did not speak about the manner in which the death was caused and also whether the body was thrown into the sea. Under the circumstance, this being a revision, there is no glaring illegality and no interference is called for.