BOOPALAN Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track court No. II, Kanchipuram, made in S. C. No. 284 of 2007, whereby the appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_849_TLMAD0_2009Html1.htm</FRM> The sentences imposed on the accused were ordered to run concurrently.

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

(3.) ADVANCING the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the occurrence was taken place in the night hours at about 1. 00 AM on 22. 08. 2006 and the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer; that it mainly rests upon the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused to the the Village Administrative officer of Attuputhur; that according to P. W. 1, he was in the office along with p. W. 2 and at that time, the accused gave a voluntary statement, which was recorded by him and marked as Ex. P-1; but in so far as the recording of confessional statement, the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2 is found to be discrepancy; that it is highly doubtful whether the accused appeared and gave voluntary statement before them and thus, it will be quite clear that in order to strengthen the case, the prosecution has fabricated those documents; that apart from that, even the post mortem certificate also did not support the case of the prosecution; that in the instant case, the prosecution has no direct evidence but only circumstantial evidence leading to the hypothesis that except the accused, no one committed the offence, and that even Form 95 through which the lorry was produced before the Magistrate concerned, would indicate that the tyre was removed, which casts a doubt whether M. O. 4 could have been produced before the Magistrate at all.