ANGURAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the Judgment of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTC-4, Coimbatore at Tirupur made in SC.No,59/2008 dated 02.07.2009 whereby the accused stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offence u/s.148, 302 read with 149 IPC and on trial, they were found guilty of the charges and were awarded with punishments as follows:- TABLE The trial Judge ordered the sentence to run concurrently. This judgment shall govern the above two appeals, viz., Crl.A.Nos.420 and 464 of 2009.

(2.) SHORT facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal can be stated as follows:-

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants would further add that according to the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, they immediately took the deceased to the hospital after the occurrence and P.W.11, the doctor who examined Karthik at about 9.55 p.m. declared him dead and the Accident Register in that regard is marked as Ex.P.6. It is pertinent to point out that in Ex.P.6, it was mentioned that it was P.W.7 who admitted the deceased Karthik in the hospital. P.W.7 also categorically deposed that when he came near the temple, he found the deceased lying on the ground and thereafter, an auto was taken and in that auto, two unknown persons accompanied P.W.7 and they are not the family members of the deceased Karthik. Thus, it would be indicative of the fact that P.Ws.1 and 2 have not accompanied the deceased and P.W.7 when the deceased Karthik was taken to the hospital. Had it been true that P.Ws.1 and 2 have actually witnessed the occurrence, they should have taken steps to take the deceased to the hospital in the same auto which was engaged by P.W.7 but either of them did not go. Thus, it casts a doubt as to whether P.Ws.1 and 2 could have been present in the place of occurrence to witness the same.