SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Puducherry in S.C.No,85/2006 dated 22.06.2009 convicting and sentencing the accused u/s. 302 r/w.34 of I.P.C to undergo life imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs.2500/- each by the accused and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE short facts which are necessary for the disposal of the appeal would be as follows:

(3.) WHILE advancing the arguments on both sides, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the lower court had erred in coming to the conclusion of convicting the accused without any ocular evidence and it had rested its evidence purely on circumstantial evidence, when those circumstantial evidence were not promising to end in conviction. They would further submit in their arguments that there was no eye witness for the incident and the accused were roped in the case merely because they were working as securities in the said institution and they were on their duty in that area. The deceased was attacked by some other person to which the accused were not responsible for the said injuries caused against the deceased Anandan. They would further submit in their arguments that the circumstantial evidence which are relied upon by the person were also not supporting the case of the prosecution, since the scientific evidence had also not supported the case. It is also submitted that the accused were not alone present in the premises of the institution during the said time but there were lot of workers staying in the institution and it cannot be said that the accused are answerable for the alleged occurrence in which the accused are said to have been participated. He would also submit that the blood stains which are stated to be at the shirts of the accused were only accidental, when they lifted the body of the deceased Anandan the blood stains were present in their shirt and therefore they cannot be incriminated in the said crime. They would insist in their arguments that the accused were found present when the matter was firstly informed to the Administrator of the institution and P.W.1 was present and if really the accused were culprit they would not have been present in scene of occurrence.