LAWS(MAD)-2009-10-190

RAVICHANDRAN Vs. STATE:

Decided On October 21, 2009
RAVICHANDRAN Appellant
V/S
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal challenges a judgment of the Additional Sessions Division, Fast Track Court No.IV, Poonamallee, made in S.C.No,21 of 2006 whereby the sole accused/appellant stood charged, tried, found guilty as per the charge of murder and awarded life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.500/-.

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

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that the prosecution much relied upon two dying declarations one before P.W.19, the Inspector of Police, which was recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. at about 8.30 A.M. on 15.10.2001 and the other before P.W.12, the Metropolitan Magistrate, between 2.45 and 2.55 P.M. on 15.10.2001 which is marked as Ex.P7 that from both these documents, it could be seen that the act of pouring of kerosene and lighting of fire was done by the accused but these are all subsequent developments and it was tutored after the meeting by P.Ws.1 and 2, the parents of the deceased that the earliest document which has come into existence namely Ex.P11, if looked into, all other documents should have been rejected by the trial Court that the prosecution has miserably failed to look into the conduct of the accused that it was he who was in a drunken mood, and even after coming to know about the same, it was he who taken her to the hospital that all would clearly indicate that had it been true that he is involved in such a crime, he would not have taken her to the hospital that apart from that, it was only 20% of the burn injuries that further the prosecution at one juncture came with the third version that according to P.W.1, he met her and questioned why she did such an act that this would clearly indicate that it was a self-immolation that all would go to show that the prosecution had three inconsistent stories before the Court that it would be sufficient to probablise that the prosecution has come with the false case that he was thoroughly innocent, and under the circumstances, he should have been acquitted.