S MURUGANANDAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGING a judgment of the Sessions Division, Nagapattinam, made in S.C.No.108/2006, whereby the appellants/A-1 and A-3 stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows, this criminal appeal is brought forth. TABLE

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

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that in the instant case, the prosecution much relied on the evidence of P.W.12, an auto driver but, he has turned hostile that if his evidence was not available to the prosecution, the prosecution had no further circumstance to offer that the prosecution examined P.Ws.8 to 11 in order to show that the accused persons were found nearby the place of occurrence and also at the time when the occurrence has taken place that a careful scrutiny of their evidence would clearly indicate that they could not have been present at the place of occurrence at all that it is true that they actually stood charged under Sec.376 IPC that even the medical opinion canvassed was not in favour of the prosecution, and hence the trial Court was not ready to believe that there was any sexual assault, and it acquitted them that under the circumstances, the medical opinion canvassed did not support the case of the prosecution that the trial Court should have acquitted the accused but failed to do so and hence it has got to be rendered by this Court.