GOVINDARAJ Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to the Judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Cuddalore Division, Cuddalore District made in SC.No.101/2007 dated 21.08.2008 whereby the accused/A1 to A3 stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offence u/s.324,302 r/w 34, 294[b] 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 in respect of the first accused.

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

(3.) LEARNED Senior counsel contended that the prosecution has come forward with a story that A1 to A3 shared the common intention and no materials were placed before the trial court to substantiate the same. According to the prosecution witnesses, it was A1 armed with iron pipe and A2 and A3 armed with wooden logs and all the eyewitnesses have categorically stated that it was A2 who has attacked the deceased with wooden log on the head but no corresponding external or internal injury is found by P.W.11-the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. At the earliest the deceased was examined by P.W.10-the doctor attached to Government Hospital, Panruti and the Accident Register-Ex.P.9 does not indicate any external injury on the skull or any part of the body and thus, the evidence of the eyewitnesses that A2 attacked the deceased with wooden log cannot but be false. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that the medical opinion canvassed by the prosecution did not support the ocular testimony. P.W.11, the doctor, has given his opinion that the death was due to shock and haemorrhage on account of head injury but no injury was actually found and had the death of the deceased been due to sub-dural haematoma and left intra cerebral haemorrhage, corresponding injury should have been found. But, no corresponding injury was noticed by P.W.11 and this opinion is also given after a period of nearly two months and hence, no evidentiary value could be attached to the opinion of P.W.11 who conducted the postmortem.