A V RAJU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals seven in number namely CA 271/2007 by A-1, CA 241/2007 by A-2, CA 322/2007 by A-3 to A-6, CA 218/2007 by A-7 and A-11, CA 311/2007 by A-8, CA 170/2007 by A-9 and CA 182/2007 by A-10, concentrate on challenging a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division (Fast Track Court No. II), Salem, made in S. C. No. 5 of 2006.

(2.) ALL these appellants/accused stood charged, tried and found guilty as follows: Table

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of A-1, A-3, A-5 and A-6, the learned Counsel would submit that the prosecution rested its entire case on the theory of conspiracy hatched up by A-1 along with others to do away with the deceased, a collection agent, who actually seized the vehicle from him and also because of the grudge over him; that the prosecution examined only one witness in order to speak about the theory of conspiracy namely P. W. 11, before the trial Court, but he turned hostile; that except his evidence, the prosecution had no evidence to offer and hence the prosecution miserably failed to prove the conspiracy theory by any evidence known to law; but, the trial Court has erroneously taken the conspiracy theory as proved, and thus the prosecution failed in its attempt.