CHANDRAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There are two accused in this case and the 2nd Accused, who is the wife of the 1st Accused was acquitted from the charges. The Appellant herein, who is the 1st Accused in S.C.No.139 of 2017 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thirunelveli, stands convicted by the Trial Court for an offence under Section 302 IPC as follows:

(2.) The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 17.01.2016 at about 03.15 p.m., when the deceased was sitting on the western side of the Kanmoi (also known as a small Pond), due to previous enmity, the 1st Accused had attacked the deceased with spade and his wife / A2 had caught hold of the deceased. At the time of occurrence, P.Ws.1 and 2, who were standing on the eastern side of the Kanmoi, rushed to the spot immediately and found that the deceased was pushed down into the Kanmoil and noticed that the deceased had already attained eternity. P.W.1, who is none other than the brother of the deceased had lodged a complaint with the respondent Police and on receipt of the same, initially a case was registered in Crime No.18 of 2016 for offences under Sections 342 and 302 r/w 34 IPC. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the Judicial Magistrate, Sankarankovil in P.R.C.No.17 of 2016 and was subsequently, made over to the Court of Sessions as per Section 209 Cr.P.C. for trial, pursuant to the commission of offences falling under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offences against the accused persons, has examined 13 witnesses, marked 17 documents and exhibited 6 Material Objects and on the side of the accused, one witness was examined and one document was marked. Before commencement of Trial, charges were altered and framed under Section 302 IPC against A1 and Sections 302 r/w 109 IPC against A2. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the 1st accused guilty of the offence and convicted him as stated supra, thereby the 2nd accused / his wife was let off. It is not known as to why the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of A2.

(3.) The foremost submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant / A1 that the evidence of eye witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1 and 2 is wholly unreliable and unbelievable, as they are close relatives of the deceased, thereby they can be termed as interested witnesses. Though it was stated by P.Ws.1 and 2 that immediately after the occurrence, they lifted the body of the deceased from the Kanmoi, there was no blood stain in their dresses, which creates suspicion over their evidence. The learned counsel further submitted that the murder had taken place in the public place, where there were several other persons working in the paddy / agricultural field and amazingly, none of them was examined by the prosecution, which is utter fatal to the prosecution case.