RAMKUMAR ALIAS AMBEDKARALIASAJAIALIASAJAI KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CRL.A. No,439 of 2009 has been filed by the first accused and CRL.A. No,818 of 2008 has been filed by the second accused, challenging the judgment dated 30.9.2008 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Trck Court - 4, Coimbatore at Tiruppur in S.C. No.115 of 2008, whereby the first accused stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offences under Sections 392 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and second accused stood charged, tried and found guilty for the offences under Sections 392 read with 109 and 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 392 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code and to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 302 read with 109 of the Indian Penal Code and both the aforesaid sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of the case can be stated thus:-

(3.) ADVANCING arguments on behalf of the first accused, learned counsel inter-alia would submit that the case of the prosecution was that on the date of occurrence i.e. on 27.2.2006 at 2 p.m., when Pappammal was alone, accused 1 and 2 in order to rob the jewels, murdered her and stolen the jewels. The prosecution had no direct evidence. It rests on circumstantial evidence. Neither last seen theory nor recovery of jewels is proved, pointing out to the guilt of either of the accused.