SANTHOSH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Ist Additional Sessions Division, Salem, made in S. C. No. 407 of 2006 whereby the appellants, two in number, along with two other accused ranked as A3 and A4, stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows:<FRM>JUDGEMENT_1367_TLMAD0_2009Html1.htm</FRM> The sentences are ordered to run concurrently.

(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 Mr. Philip Ravindaran Jesudoss would submit, in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It relied upon the circumstantial evidence. The two main circumstances relied on by the prosecution was the last seen theory and the recovery. As regards the last seen theory is concerned, the prosecution marched P. Ws. 5, 6, 8 and 9. Out of these witnesses, P. W. 5 turned hostile. Insofar as P. Ws. 6, 8 and 9 are concerned, their evidence should have been rejected by the trial Court. All the witnesses have categorically claimed that they saw all the accused persons in the railway track and also noticed blood stains on the shirts of A1 and A2 and thereafter, they went to Salem and returned during night hours. When, they came to know about the death of Chinnathayee, they informed the Police the next morning and their statements were recorded. Contrarily, when P. W. 1 was cross examined, he candidly admitted that when he went in search of his mother Chinnathayee the dead body was found in a pit and with the assistance of P. Ws. 5, 6, 8 and 9, the dead body was lifted and it was brought home. Thus, all the above witnesses were present along with him on the evening hours of the date of occurrence. Hence, it would conclusively indicate that those witnesses could not have seen either Chinnathayee grazing cattle or the accused running away from the place of occurrence. Thus, these witnesses are only false introduction made by the prosecution side. Hence, the trial Court should have rejected that piece of evidence.