K SIVARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern these two criminal appeals in C.A.Nos.181 and 251 of 2007 and also the revision in Crl.R.C.No,876 of 2007. They challenge a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court, Dharmapuri, made in S.C.No,358 of 2005 whereby A-1 to A-49 stood charged and tried, and out of them, A-11, A-13, A-14, A-17, A-19, A-21, A-22, A-24 to A-42 and A-44 to A-49 were acquitted of all the charges, while A-1 to A-10, A-12, A-15, A-16, A-18, A-20, A-23 and A-43 were found guilty and awarded punishment as follows:Table

(2.) OUT of the said convicted accused, A-3 and A-23 have preferred C.A.No,251/2007, while the remaining convicted accused have brought forth C.A.No.181/2007. Aggrieved over that part of the order of acquittal, Crl.R.C.No,876/2007 has been brought forth by P.W.1. Both these appeals and the revision case were taken up for consideration jointly.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned Senior Counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case from any angle that it cannot be stated that it has adduced any evidence though it claimed that it has got direct evidence through P.Ws.1 to 3 that the trial Court was unable to agree with the evidence put forth by the prosecution in respect of A-11, A-13, A-14 and others in respect of whom an order of acquittal has been made that all the reasons which impelled the trial Court not to believe those evidence are equally applicable to the persons who have been convicted that if to be so, they should have also been acquitted but, the trial Court has erroneously found them guilty that according to the prosecution, the occurrence has taken place at about 11.30 A.M. on 18.8.1992 that first of all, the occurrence could not have taken place as put forth by the prosecution that P.W.1 is claimed to be an eyewitness along with P.W.2 that even as per the direct evidence adduced through them, they were actually working in the other field, and the distance between the two fields even as per their admission, was 350 feet, and in between the land of the deceased and the land, where P.Ws.1 and 2 were working, there was a pond that under the circumstances, it would be quite clear that it is actually situated in the other direction, which may be north or south that if to be so, they could not have seen the occurrence at all that apart from that, in between the fields, there was a thani bush also that P.Ws.1 and 2 even after hearing the noise, could not have seen the occurrence that it would suffice to reject their evidence that P.W.1 could not be taken as eyewitness for the simple reason that according to him, A-7 attempted at his life, and immediately, being scared and also due to fear, he ran away from the place of occurrence but, according to the witnesses, no one went and except him, all were available that it is highly a matter of surprise to note that P.W.1 has escaped from the place of occurrence while all the persons in the mob were available that if to be so, he would have been chased that even as per the prosecution case, the entire mob have actually acted in furtherance of the common object of murdering Ramalingam, but no one of the accused and in particular A-7, had anything to do with P.W.1 and that in order to show as if some overt acts have been committed by A-7, such a version has been included.