PANDI THEVAR ALIAS PANDIAN Vs. ERODE DISTRICT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Erode made in S. C. No. 56 of 2007 whereby the sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with fine and default sentence.

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

(3.) ADVANCING the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant, the prosecution, though examined 7 witnesses as eye witnesses, only P. Ws 1 to 3 have spoken in favour of the prosecution. P. W. 1 is the wife of the deceased and she is an interested witness. When the evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 is scrutinised it would show that there are lot of discrepancies on the material particulars. Hence, their evidence is inconsistent. Therefore, the trial Court should have rejected their evidence. Insofar as the ocular testimony of these witnesses is concerned, it did not corroborate with the medical evidence canvassed. Further, in the instant case, the accused has sustained injuries and the injuries were actually found and spoken by a doctor. P. W. 11, doctor have noted the injuries on the head of the accused and those injuries could not have been caused without a weapon. The injuries sustained by the accused was not explained. Hence, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the genesis of the occurrence and the non-explanation of the injuries on the accused would be suffice to reject the prosecution case. For that proposition the learned counsel relied on the decision of the Apex court reported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court 2263 (Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar ). The learned counsel would add that the trial Court has taken an erroneous view and found the accused guilty. Hence, the accused has got to be acquitted in the hands of this Court.