RAJA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Division, Fast Track Court-I, Chengleput, made in S. C. No. 32/2000, whereby the appellant shown as A2 stood charged under section 302 r/w 34 IPC, tried and on trial, he was found guilty under section 302 r/w 34 IPC along with A1 and awarded life imprisonment.

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

(3.) ADVANCING the arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence. In so far as the motive part was concerned, it has taken place one week prior to the occurrence. According to P. W. 5, when she was just proceeding to the market, both the accused eve teased her. Then, it was questioned by the deceased. If it is true, it should have been brought to the notice of the police or to the important person of the said place but nothing has taken place. Even assuming it is true, the incident had taken place one week prior to the occurrence and it cannot be a motive for the accused to commit such an crime of murder. So far as the eye-witnesses to the occurrence are concerned, the prosecution examined P. Ws. 1 to 3 as eye witnesses, out of whom, P. Ws. 2 and 3 were examined as chance witnesses but they would not have seen the occurrence at all. So far as P. W. 1 was concerned, he could have been present at the time of incident and only on information he would have reached the spot. Under such circumstances, the so-called eye witnesses should have been rejected by the trial Court, since they are shrouded with suspicion.