SURENDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri made in S.C.No.149 of 2007 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried and found guilty under sections 302 and 450 I.P.C. and awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default, to undergo one year rigorous imprisonment respectively. The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

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

(3.) ADDED further learned counsel, before the trial Court, the prosecution relied on the extra judicial confession alleged to have been given by the accused/appellant, but P.W.6 Village Administrative Officer has categorically admitted that he did not prepare three copies of the same which is the mandatory procedure to be adopted. Apart from that, P.W.6 has not furnished the copies to the higher authorities. The confessional statement alleged to have been given by the accused before the Investigating Officer, pursuant to which M.O.4 was produced by the accused was thoroughly unnatural. According to P.W.10 Head Constable, he was informed by the Inspector about the occurrence at about 4.30 p.m. and went to the scene of occurrence at 5.00 p.m. with the Sub-Inspector of Police. Thus, it is quite clear that the Investigating Officer was present even before 5.00 p.m. Hence, it would be quite clear that at about 5.00 p.m. information should be given to the Investigating Officer and they have gone to the scene of occurrence. Thus, the earlier information was suppressed.