MUNIAPPAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Principal Sessions Division, Krishnagiri, made in S. C. No. 26 of 2007, whereby the single and sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty under Sections 302 and 324 I. P. C. and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment under section 302 IPC and six months rigorous imprisonment under section 324 IPC and the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

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

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellant/ accused, the learned counsel would submit that the prosecution though marched P. Ws. 1 to 4 as eye witnesses, has miserably failed to prove its case; that P. W. 1 is the mother and P. W. 2 is the brother of the deceased and others were also the close relatives and their evidence has to be discarded in view of the major discrepancies on the material particulars. Added further that the opinion canvassed through P. W. 7 doctor clearly indicates that it did not corroborate the ocular testimony; that it is true that P. W. 1 has been examined not only an eye witness but also an injured witness; but her evidence if scrutinized carefully, was not worth mentioning and hence, no credence could be attached to the evidence of P. W. 1 though claimed to be an injured witness; that in the instant case, the subsequent recovery of M. O. 1 knife as if pursuant to the alleged confessional statement was nothing but cooked up one in order to strengthen the case of the prosecution case and make it appear to be true and genuine case, but not so and that the learned trial Judge should not have passed the order of conviction and hence, the judgment has got to be set aside.