SATHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.2.1992 made in S.C.No.316 of 1990 on the file of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under Sec.304(II), INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860. and sentencing him to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE appellant, who was A-l before the court below, was facing trial in S.C.No.316 of 1990 for the offence punishable under Sec.304-II, INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, along with two others namely A-2 and A-3, with regard to an alleged occurrence said to have taken place on 20.1.1990 at about 9 p.m. wherein A-1 along with A-2 and A-3 said to have attacked one Ganapathy, who was the husband of P. W. 1 and eldest brother of P. W.2, by using a casuarina Stick, which was produced as M.O.1. Admittedly, A-2 and A-3 are husband and wife and A-1 and A-2 are cousin brothers.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant further contends that even though P.W.3 speaks about the motive behind the commission of offence, P.W.3 do not connect either of the accused to the occurrence. THErefore, the only remaining evidence which were relied upon by the trial court were the evidences of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were admittedly interest witnesses as P.Ws. 1 and 2 were the wife and brother of the deceased Ganapathy, respectively. He further contends that one Balakrishnan, who was the son-in-law of P.W.1 and the deceased Ganapathy, who along with P.W.3 went to the seen of occurrence and took the deceased Ganapathy to the hospital, was not examined by the prosecution and the reason for not examining the said Balakrishnan was not given by the prosecution.