GURUSAMY Vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CA 618/2007 preferred under Sec.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, made in S.C.No,62 of 2005 dated 12.7.2007. CA 750/2008 preferred under Sec.378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of acquittal made by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No,62 of 2005 dated 12.7.2007.) Common Judgment These two appeals have arisen from the judgment of the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Erode, in S.C.No,62 of 2005. The former CA 618/2007 is at the instance of A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5. Out of 14 accused who stood charged and tried, A-1, A-2, A-4 and A-5 were found guilty and awarded punishment as follows, while all others were acquitted of all the charges. Regarding that part of order of acquittal, the State has preferred the latter appeal in CA 750/2008. Table

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals can be stated as follows:

(3.) THE learned Senior Counsel would further add that in the instant case, the prosecution came with a case that lot of properties were also damaged that in that count also, the trial Court was not ready to believe the case that P.W.1 is the son of P.Ws.2 and 3 that P.W.4 is the cousin brother of P.W.1 that P.W.12 is the brother of P.W.3 and thus they are all closely related to each other that this fact would clearly indicate that they are all partisan witnesses, and they have given interested testimony that now at this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the defence came forward with the specific plea that there was really a quarrel regarding the grazing of goat that there was a panchayat that was to be convened at about 4.30 P.M. that it was to be presided over by the wife of the MLA and she did not come to the spot, and at that juncture, the incident has arisen that this plea put forth by the defence was actually fortified by the evidence of P.W.3 that she has categorically admitted all the above that from the FIR and also the evidence of P.W.3, it would be quite clear that there was a quarrel and also a free fight among the parties that in that process, not only P.Ws.1 to 4 were injured, but also A-2 got a head injury that the prosecution had no explanation to offer how he sustained head injury that this would be fatal to the prosecution case and that the non-production of any evidence or explanation regarding the head injury sustained by A-2 would suffice to reject the prosecution case in toto.