THIRUGNANASAMBANDA MOORTHY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.I, Chidambaram, made in S.C.No,281/2007 whereby the appellants three in number, stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: TABLE

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

(3.) ADDED further the learned Senior Counsel that from the evidence of P.W.7, it would be quite clear that there was a tamarind tree which was stretching its branches towards the house of the accused that when there was a quarrel, P.W.7 was called, and he went over to the spot and found that the tamarind tree was actually on the divider line, and only on his advice, the prosecution party raised the fence that the prosecution witnesses were quarreling and thereafter, A-1 was compelled to approach the police on 31.5.2006 when he gave a complaint that after the receipt of the complaint, the police have summoned that the prosecution witnesses instead of going to the police station as per the summons, have entered into the house of the accused, damaged the movables and also assaulted the wife of A-1 that this has actually been spoken to by P.W.7, the VAO that P.W.27, the Investigator, has categorically admitted that a complaint was given by A-1 on the previous day i.e., 31.5.2006, and apart from that, another complaint was given on 1.6.2006, and it was treated as CSR No,67/2006 that he would also further add that it was referred as mistake of fact that had it been true, what prevented the prosecution from filing the copy of the FIR and also the CSR, etc., remained unknown that even no documents were marked at all and that this would be indicative of the fact that it was the prosecution witnesses who have actually entered into the house of the accused and committed the offences.