FRANCIS XAVIER ALIAS FRANCIS Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Judgment shall govern two appeals viz., Crl.A.No.626/08 by A1 and A2 and Crl.A.No.636 of 2008 by A3.

(2.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Court (Fast Track Court No.2) Coimbatore made in S.C.No.44 of 2004, whereby the accused 1 and 2/appellants 1 and 2, tried, stood charged and found guilty under Section 341 IPC and awarded one month S.I. with a fine of Rs.100/- in default to undergo one week S.I. and under Section 302 read with 34 IPC and awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2,000/-(each) in default to undergo three years S.I. and the sentences are ordered to run concurrently and the third accused tried, stood charged and found guilty under Section 302 read with 109 IPC and awarded life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.2000/- in default to undergo three years S.I.

(3.) HE has also photographed the place of occurrence and they were marked as M.O.9 and 10 series are Photos and negatives respectively. PW19 conducted inquest on the dead body in the CMC Hospital ,Coimbatore in the presence of panchayators and witnesses and prepared Ex.P.17 inquest report. Then the dead body was sent for postmortem.e) P.W.14, the Doctor attached to the Department of Forensic Medicine, Coimbatore, medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore, on receipt of the requisition, has conducted post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased and has issued Ex.P.10, the post-mortem certificate, wherein he has opined that the deceased would appear to have died of shock and hemorrhage due to multiple injuries.f) Pending investigation, A1 to A3 were arrested. They gave confession statement voluntarily and recorded in the presence of witnesses and admissible part of which are marked as Ex.P.18, 19 and 20 respectively. Pursuant to the confession statement, A1 produced M.O.1, knife, M.O.14 shirt and M.O.15 pant. They were recovered under the cover of Mahazar. Equally, A2 produced M.O.2 knife, M.O.16 shirt and M.O.17 pant which were also recovered under the cover of Mahazar. A3 also gave confession statement . All the three accused sent to judicial remand and thereafter all the M.Os. were sent for chemical analysis. Accordingly, the analysis report also received by the Court and on completion of the investigation, Investigator filed the final report.4. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and necessary charges were framed. In order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused, the prosecution examined 19 witnesses and also relied on 31 exhibits and M.Os.17. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The accused flatly denied the same as false. On the side of defence, one Irudayaraj was examined as DW1. The trial court, after hearing the arguments advanced and scrutinizing the materials available, took the view that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt, found them guilty and awarded punishment as referred to above. HEnce this appeal has arisen at the instance of accused 1 to 3/appellants herein.5. Advancing arguments on behalf of the appellants 1 and 2, learned Senior counsel would submit that the occurrence had taken place at 10.30 p.m. on 30.6.2003. The prosecution had examined Pws.1,2,3,4 and 5 as eye witnesses. It is true that all the eye witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution at the time of chief examination. At the time of cross-examination, they have given up their entire evidence recorded, but they have not treated as hostile. The cross examination of the witnesses, if scrutinized, would clearly indicative of the fact that the entire prosecution case has been given up. On intimation given by doctor, the police Officer went to the CMC Hospital and recorded the statement of PW1 and the same is marked as Ex.P.1. It is further claimed that the name of the accused were mentioned in Ex.P.1, but PW1 has categorically deposed that immediately after the occurrence, the deceased was taken to Senthil Nursing Home and since the doctor was not available, they went to Government Hospital where the police officer came and recorded the statement of PW1 which was to the effect that the accused persons were not known to her and further added that the such an evidence was given in chief examination under threat and coercion and further she has added that at the time of cross examination, she has categorically deposed that she could not identify the accused persons who were involved in the crime. Under such circumstances, the evidence of PW1 is of no use to the prosecution case.