PARAMASIVAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern these two Crl. A. Nos. 260 and 261 of 2009. Crl. Appeal No. 260/2009 was filed by A2 to A5 and Crl. Appeal No. 261/2009 was filed by A1 and A6. The appellants stood charged, tried and found guilty by the trial Court as follows. First charge : A1 to A5 were found guilty u/s. 147 and 148 IPC and A6 was found guilty u/s. 147 IPC. Second charge: A2 to A5 were found guilty u/s. 302 (2 counts) r/w 149 IPC and a6 was found guilty u/s. 302 r/w 149 and 109 IPC. Accused findings award a1 to A5 guilty u/s 147, 148, 302 (2 counts) r/w 149 IPC 1 year RI ; 1 years RI; life imprisonment (2 counts) with fine of Rs. 10,000. 00 each for each count i/d. to undergo 1 year RI, and 1 year RI respectively. A6 guilty u/s 147, 302 (2 counts) r/w 149 and 109 IPC 1 year RI and life imprisonment (2 counts) with fine of Rs. 5,000. 00 each for each count i/d. to undergo 1 year RI respectively

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

(3.) ADVANCING the arguments on behalf of the appellants A1 to A6, learned senior counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution marched three witnesses as eye witnesses viz. , P. Ws. 1 to 3. P. W. 1 is the mother of both the deceased, P. W. 2 is the brother of both the deceased and P. W. 3 is the wife of the deceased Magudeeswaran. It is quite clear from Ex. P1 report that all these witnesses had come to the place of occurrence subsequent to the occurrence. Hence, they could not have seen the occurrence at all. As far as P. Ws. 2 and 3 are concerned, Ex. P1 report would indicate that after the occurrence was over, P. Ws. 2 and 3 have gone to the place of occurrence and saw the accused/a1 to A5 running away from the place of occurrence. Therefore, they could not have seen the occurrence at all. As far as P. W. 1 is concerned, it is a solitary testimony. In a case of solitary testimony, the Court must look into the corroborative piece of evidence to accept the solitary testimony. When the evidence of P. W. 1 is looked into, it is thoroughly shaky and it should not have been accepted by the trial Court. According to P. W. 1, at the time of occurrence, when she was in her house, a boy who belonged to the same village informed her about the incident. Thereafter, P. W. 1 rushed to the spot.