VAITHI ALIAS VAITHILINGAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the First Principal District and Sessions Judge, Perambalur made in S.C.No.174 of 2007, whereby appellants herein(A1,A2,A5,A6,A7 and A10) along with five others stood charged, tried and found guilty under Section 148 IPC and sentencing them to undergo two years R.I. and also charged under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo six months S.I. and also the first accused stood charged and found guilty under Section 341 IPC and sentencing him to undergo six months R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo three months S.I. and the fifth accused stood charged and found guilty under Section 323 IPC and sentencing him to undergo six months R.I., and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to undergo three months S.I. and with the further direction to run the sentences concurrently by each accused The trial court made an order of acquittal for A3, A4,A8,A9 and A11.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

(3.) IT is true that from the medical evidence, it would be quite clear that the deceased died out of homicidal violence and the prosecution was successful enough in proving the particular fact. But, insofar as the other parts were concerned, the prosecution had not proved its case. Added further, the occurrence had taken place at 7.30 p.m. on 26.2.2004, Pws.1,2 and 11, though claimed to be eye witnesses have not gone to the police station after seeing the heinous crime. They have only informed PW4, the sister and PW6, the mother of the deceased. Moreover, Pws.4 and 6 have not gone to the scene of occurrence immediately, but they went to the spot next day morning i.e. on 27.2.2004. Though PW1 has actually seen the occurrence and also sustained injury by A5 at the spot, he has not proceeded to the police station, but has given a complaint on the next day morning at 10.30 a.m. i.e. after a period of nearly 12 hours. All would go to show that these witnesses could not have been come in the place of occurrence and hence the prosecution miserably failed in its attempt to prove the case. The trial Court, without looking anyone of the aspects of the matter, has taken an erroneous view that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellants are entitled for acquittal.