SUGUNU ALIAS SUGANESWARAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall govern these two appeals namely C.A.No.328 of 2009 by A-1 and A-2 and C.A.No.613 of 2009 by A-3.

(2.) THESE appeals challenge a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Special Court (EC Act), Salem, made in S.C.No.280 of 2005 whereby the appellants three in number stood charged, tried and found guilty as per the charges under Sections 341 and 302 read with 34 of IPC and awarded one month Rigorous Imprisonment and life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.2000/- and default sentence respectively.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellants/A-1 and A-2 in CA No.328 of 2009, the learned Counsel Mr.B.Vasudevan would submit that in the instant case, the occurrence, according to the prosecution, has taken place on 8.5.2004 at about 11.15 P.M.; that the prosecution marched three witnesses as eyewitnesses namely P.Ws.1, 2 and 8; that as far as P.W.2 was concerned, his name does not find place in the FIR; that he is also the brother-in-law of the deceased; that he was subsequently introduced as a witness in the case; that under the circumstances, no evidentiary value could be attached to the evidence of P.W.2; that as far as P.W.8 was concerned, he was claimed to be the Watchman of the State Bank Colony in front of which the occurrence has taken place; that as regards P.W.8, he was an utter stranger, and he has also not produced any documentary evidence to indicate that he was actually employed as a watchman during the relevant time on the day; that the evidence of P.W.8 should have been rejected by the trial Court for the simple reason that once he claimed to be an utter stranger to the deceased and the accused, identification parade should have been conducted in which he should have identified them; but, the test identification parade was not at all conducted; that under the circumstances, the evidence of P.W.8 is thoroughly unnatural; that as far as the evidence of P.W.1 was concerned, it is an admitted position that he was also a close friend of the deceased who accompanied him; that it is further to be pointed out that when there was a quarrel, he was not at all attacked by any one of the accused; that it is also not his case that he was attacked by anybody; that it would be quite clear that such an incident could not have taken place at all; that the evidence that when the deceased and himself were coming, they were waylaid, and there was a wordy altercation, and P.W.1 was not touched by anybody looks unnatural; that it would be quite clear that only after the occurrence was over, P.W.1 would have been informed of the fact, and then he came to the place, went to the police station and gave the complaint wherein he has mentioned the name of the accused, which is totally imaginary; and that under the circumstances the trial Court should have disbelieved the prosecution case and rejected the same, but entered a judgment of conviction.