RAGU ALIAS RAGUKUMAR Vs. KARUNA ALIAS KARUNAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.A.Nos.651 and 776 of 2007 preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Chennai, made in S.C.No.138 of 2007 dated 6.7.2007. C.A.834/2008 preferred under Sec.377 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Chennai, made in S.C.No.138 of 2007 dated 6.7.2007.) Both these appeals namely C.A.Nos.651/2007 by A-1 and A-5 to A-7 and 776/2007 by A-2 and A-3, challenge a judgment of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Fast Track Court No.II, Chennai. They stood charged along with A-4 since deceased, under Sections 120(b), 147, 148, 341 and 302 of IPC. On trial, A-1 and A-5 to A-7 were found guilty under Sections 120(b) r/w 302 and 341 of IPC and sentenced to undergo 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and 1 month Rigorous Imprisonment respectively. A-2 and A-3 were found guilty under Sections 148 and 302 of IPC and awarded 3 years Rigorous Imprisonment and life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.10000/- and default sentence respectively.

(2.) THE State has preferred C.A.No,834 of 2008 for enhancement of sentence imposed on A-1 and A-5 to A-7.

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the appellants/A-2 and A-3 in C.A.No,776 of 2007, the learned Senior Counsel Mr.V.Gopinath would submit that in the instant case, the prosecution proceeded by resting its case that there was originally a conspiracy hatched up by the accused in order to do away with the deceased Veera, and the same was actually heard by P.W.14, the mother of the deceased that the only witness examined in that regard is P.W.14 that she has deposed before the Court that when she found the mother of A-3, she was holding a cell phone and was talking to her son A-3, while A-3 informed her that something was done by somebody and hence he would come later that except this, she has not deposed anything from which nothing could be inferred that there was any conspiracy hatched up by the accused that it is pertinent to point out that the Investigating Officer has candidly admitted that this evidence as spoken to by P.W.14 was actually not given in her statement recorded under Sec.161 of Cr.P.C. and that it would be quite clear that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the conspiracy theory.