PULLIAH Vs. JANARTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION filed under Section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C. against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum IV Fast Track Court, Chengalpattu at Poonamallee in S.C.No,72 of 2003, dated 18.4.2006 acquitting the respondents 1 to 2 for the charge u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and the respondent 3 for the charge u/s 302 r/w 109 IPC and prays that this Honourable Court may be pleased to call for the records in the above said sessions case from the above said Court and exercise the powers of criminal revision of this Court and set aside the above said judgment. Animadverting upon the order dated 18.4.2006, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cum IV Fast Track Court, Chengalpattu at Poonamallee in S.C.No,72 of 2003, this criminal revision is focussed.

(2.) BROADLY but briefly, narratively but precisely,the relevant facts which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision would run thus: (a) The police laid the police report in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. against A1 to A3 for the following offences: Respondents 1 and 2 were charged for the offence u/s 302 r/w 34 IPC and respondent 3 was charged for the offence u/s 302 r/w 109 IPC. (b) Inasmuch as the accused pleaded not guilty, the learned Sessions Judge proceeded with the trial. On the prosecution side P.Ws 1 to 23 were examined, Exs.P1 to P38 were marked and M.Os.1 to 11 were marked. On the defendants' side no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. Ultimately the trial Court acquitted the accused of all the offences, with which, they were charged. (c) Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of acquittal, the father of the deceased, Pulliah, who was P.W.8 in the prosecution case, filed thi revision challenging and impugning the acquittal on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus:

(3.) THE points for consideration are as to: