PANDI @ PALPANDI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The injured witness/P.W.2 has preferred this appeal against the judgment of acquittal dated 04.07.2016 in S.C.No.179 of 2015 passed by the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. By the said judgment, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the respondents 2 and 3 herein/accused of the offence with which they were respectively charged.

(2.) The accused had enmity with the appellant over the grazing of the crops on the land belonging to the appellant by their cattle. The deceased was working in the field of the appellant. Because of this motive, on 26.06.2014 at about 02.00 p.m, when the appellant was coming in his bike along with the deceased Palpandi in the pillion on the south-north cement road on the western side of Murugasen Match Box Office situated at Thappathi Village, they were waylaid by the accused. Sivaperumal was armed with Aruval while Subbaiah was armed with Centring Rod. The accused pushed down the bike on which the appellant and the deceased were travelling and abused them in filthy language. Thereafter, Sivaperumal attacked the appellant with Aruval which was prevented by the appellant with his left hand. The appellant suffered cut injury on his left wrist. Subbaiah attacked the deceased Palpandi with centring rod while Sivaperumal attacked Palpandi on the left side of his neck, head and also left hand. Palpandi suffered instantaneous death. Crime No.72 of 2014 was registered on the file of Masarpatti Police Station, Tuticorin District. After investigation, final report was laid. The accused were charged for the offences under Sections 341, 294(B) and 302 r/w 34 I.P.C. Palpandi was additionally charged with the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. It was taken on file and committed to the learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tuticorin. The plea of the accused was one of total denial and they claimed to be tried. After trial, the learned Trial Judge acquitted the accused of the offences with which they were charged. The State did not file any appeal challenging the judgment of acquittal. It was only PW.2, the injured witness who has filed this appeal.

(3.) Heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant who took us through the deposition of all the material witnesses and contended that the Trial Court has not correctly appreciated the evidence. It is true that the defence has brought out a few discrepancies and minor contradictions in the evidence. But then, as held in Yogesh Singh V. Mahabeer Singh and others reported in 2016 (4) Crimes 121 (SC), they should not be given undue emphasis. The test is whether the evidence on record inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. In this case, the injured witness has convincingly spoken about the role played by the accused. The learned senior counsel further submitted that if the evidence of P.W.2 is believed, the discrepancies deserve to be ignored and the judgment of acquittal reversed.