NAGARAJAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Erode made in S. C. No. 281 of 2008 whereby the appellant shown as A1 along with the other accused ranked as A2 stood charged, tried and found guilty under sections 302 r/w 34 and 379 IPC and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default, to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and three years rigorous imprisonment respectively. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently. This appeal is brought forth by the first accused.

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

(3.) ADVANCING the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned Senior counsel would submit that the case of the prosecution was that the occurrence has taken place between 12 to 16 hours on 22. 10. 2008 in which the wife of P. W. 1 by name one Mayammal was murdered and her jewels were robbed. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It relied upon the circumstantial evidence. The two witnesses were examined by the prosecution namely P. W. 15 and P. W. 4. According to P. W. 15, he found the deceased and also A1 and A2 at or about the time and nearby the place of occurrence on 22. 10. 2008. According to P. W. 4, she found A1 and A2 coming from the banana garden at or about the time of occurrence. Thus, the prosecution made an attempt to show that the deceased was in the company of the accused at the time and place of occurrence. Though P. W. 15 would claim that he have seen the deceased in the company of the accused and P. W. 4 would claim that he saw only the accused at or about the place of occurrence on 22. 10. 2008, they have not whispered for a period of two days to anybody and their statement were recorded only on 24. 10. 2008. The investigator would claim that A1 was arrested on 24. 10. 2008 and thus, it would be quite indicative of the fact that the statement of these witnesses P. Ws. 15 and 4 would have been prepared to suit the prosecution case. Thus, the conduct of P. Ws. 4 and 15 for not speaking about the last seen theory for a period of two days would clearly indicate that they have come with a false story.