NAGARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (JUDGMENT of the court was delivered by M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.)Challenge is made to a judgment of the III Additional Sessions Division, Pondicherry, made in S. C. No. 40 of 2003, whereby the single and sole accused stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 302 I. P. C. and awarded the life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to undergo six months simple imprisonment.

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

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellant, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case; that P. Ws. 1 and 2 were marched as eye witnesses, but their evidence was thoroughly discrepant; that even according to P. W. 1, he had actually left for his job in the early morning hours and hence, it will be quite clear that he could not have seen the occurrence at all; that according to P. W. 2, when he saw the occurrence, none of them was present in that place, which shows that he also could not have seen the occurrence; that when there were contradictions in the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 2, the case of the prosecution should have been rejected, but not done so by the trial court erroneously. Added further the learned counsel that the medical opinion canvassed by the prosecution did not support the case of the prosecution; that according to P. W. 1, the deceased was attacked by the accused with M. O. 1 indiscriminately on different parts, but it was the opinion of the doctor that the shock and haemorrhage due to blunt injury to the abdomen was the reason for the death, which was not corroborative with the ocular testimony. Added further the claim made by the investigator at the time of his evidence as if the accused was arrested on 08. 04. 2003 and he gave the confessional statement voluntarily and following which, M. O. 1 same was recovered in a cover of mahazar, was all nothing but documents fabricated in order to strengthen 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.