LAWS(MAD)-2009-7-561

RAMU Vs. STATE

Decided On July 30, 2009
RAMU Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against the conviction and sentence imposed in S.C.No,246 of 2007 dated 21.5.2008 on the file of Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No,2), Cuddalore.) Challenge is made to the order of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court No,2),Cuddalore made in S.C.NO.246 OF 2007 whereby the appellants shown as A1,2,3,5,6 and 11 were charged, tried and found guilty as follows: A1 to A3, 5, 6 and 11 were convicted for the offence under Section 148 IPC and sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment (each) A6 and A11 convicted under Section 324 IPC and sentenced to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- in default to undergo five years and A2,3,5,6 and 11 were convicted under Section 302 read with 149 IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.25,000/- in default to undergo five years.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel would further add that insofar as the recovery, the prosecution would claim that all the weapons were recovered from the accused, pursuant to the confession statement given by them voluntarily, but this part of the evidence cannot be true, in view of the evidence of PW2 at the time of cross examination . According to PW2, all the accused persons threw weapons on the ground and fled away from the scene of occurrence, if to be so, all the weapons should have been recovered from the place of occurrence by the Investigating Officer, at the time when he inspected the scene of occurrence. Per contra, in order to strengthen the case, if possible, all the documents and records should be produced pertaining to confession and recovery of Mos, but it has not been done so and hence that part of the evidence should have been rejected by the trial Court. The trial Court has taken an erroneous view and hence it is a fit case where the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside.