MOHHAMED ALI JHINNA ALIAS JHINNA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No. 1, Chengleput, made in S. C. No. 231 of 2008 whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default to undergo one month rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE 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, in the instant case P. Ws. 1 to 4 were examined as eye witnesses. Though, P. W. 1 is the Manager, P. Ws. 2 and 4 were the salesmen and P. W. 3 was the customer, their evidence would clearly indicate that there are lot of discrepancies on material particulars. The witnesses had admitted that there was quarrel between the accused and the deceased for more than 10 minutes. If the accused/appellant and the deceased were salesmen in that shop, at the relevant time, P. W. 1 who was the Manager should have intervened and pacified the situation, but not done so. When the occurrence had taken place, there were number of persons available in the shop. Therefore, the accused could have been caught by some one else but not so. A perusal of the post mortem certificate would reveal that there was injury on the neck and it had actually pierced into the wind pipe. If to be so, the deceased could have not spoken at all, but the prosecution has come with the story that the deceased was taken to the Police Station immediately, and the deceased gave a complaint and on the basis of which a case came to be registered are highly unbelievable. So far as the injury found in the post mortem certificate was not accounted by the so called eye witnesses, the recovery and the alleged confessional statement, pursuant to which M. O. 1 knife were all cooked up in order to strength the prosecution case. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the trial Court has taken an erroneous view and convicted the accused.