SATHIYARAJ Vs. THE STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the sole accused in S.C.No.253 of 2012, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Thanjavur. He stood charged for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 I.P.C. By Judgment dtd. 17/4/2014, the trial Court has convicted the accused and sentenced him, as detailed below:

(2.) The case of the prosecution, as put forth by its witnesses, is consciously narrated below:

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant/accused submitted that as per the prosecution case, nobody had seen the commission of the offence and the entire case of the prosecution rests upon the circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has no direct evidence in order to prove the charge against the appellant/accused. As per the case of the prosecution, on 24/12/2010 at about 05.15 p.m., the deceased took the appellant/accused to his hut for having unnatural sex and since the appellant/accused refused for the same, there was a fight between them. At the height of provocation and fury, the appellant/accused picked up a stool and attacked the deceased indiscriminately and also took a grinding stone and hit him on his head. Thereafter, he took the cell phone of the deceased and fled away from the scene of the occurrence and the said cell phone was given to P.W.7 who is running a mobile shop, for repair. However, when the said cell phone - M.O.13 was shown to P.W.7, in his cross-examination, he stated that M.O.13 is not the cell phone which was given by the deceased to him for repair. Therefore, though it is the case of the prosecution that the cell phone was taken by the appellant/accused, the said cell phone was not marked and the recovery of the same was not proved.