SURESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast track Court IV, Poonamallee, made in S.C.No,65 of 2006, whereby the appellants three in number along with the juvenile accused tried, stood charged and found guilty under Section 302 IPC and awarded life imprisonment as well as found guilty under Section 201 read with 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo seven years rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE story of the prosecution case as put forth before the Trial Court can be stated thus:

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellants, the learned counsel would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It relied upon certain circumstances, which did not even indicate the nexus of the crime in question with the accused. PW1 is father, while Pws.3 and 4 are uncle and nephew of the deceased respectively. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that PW-7, a colleague of the deceased came back from the college along with him. But, according to him, he left him at about 4'O Clock nearby a church in Ambattur. Thereafter, he did not see him. The second circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that at about 5.30 p.m., Pws.3 and 4 when they were nearing the railway line at Ambattur, they found a person look-like the deceased along with four others. Pws.3 and 4 would further claim that when PW-1 came to their native place at Chidambaram on 12.8.2003, both of them informed about the same. Even in EX.P.1 report, it was mentioned by PW1 on the next day, viz., 13.8.2003. This fact was also not mentioned to PW-13, Inspector of Police and apart from this, Pws.3 and 4 were not certain that the person whom they met was the deceased himself. Apart from that, if they are very particular that they had seen A1 to A4, Identification Parade should have been conducted. The case of the prosecution was that both the witnesses have not identified the accused persons in the police station and it would not be suffice as per law. The next circumstance is that PW6 was a lady and according to her, three persons, who were not the accused met her at house and informed that they are under the grip of fear that they found a dead body in the lake. It would be quite clear that PW6's evidence was of no consequence or use in so far as the prosecution case was concerned. In this case, it is not the evidence of PW6 that the persons who came to her house are not accused, but some other persons. The next circumstance relied upon was that the evidence of PW-12, a shopwala at Ambattur. According to him, A1 and A2 came to his shop and purchased a toy and a cap. But, they did not pay for the same, when there was a demand. They went away and nowhere they got the accused in question. The last circumstance relied on by the counsel was that the confessional statement alleged to have been given by the accused. Even assuming, pursuant to the confession statement, the alleged recovery was made, it is suffice to speak about the nexus of the crime in question with the accused. Under these circumstances, the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the necessary circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The trial Court has taken an erroneous view and hence it is a fit case where the judgment of the trial Court has got to be set aside.