ANTONY NADAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Antony Nadar, the appellant herein, was arrayed as A4 and convicted for the offence under Section 302 read with 34 I.P.C along with A1 to A3.

(2.) The facts in brief leading to conviction are as follows:

(3.) Mr.Kathirvelu, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would take us through the entire evidence and contend that since the case of the prosecution would bristle with several infirmities, the accused is entitled to be acquitted. According to him, even though the occurrence had taken place at 5.00 p.m, P.W.1 chose to go to the Police Station, which is situated at a distance of 3 k.m., only at 7.00 p.m. and gave Ex.P1 complaint, which was received by the Magistrate only at 12.00 p.m. and as such, the delay in lodging the complaint as well as the delay of FIR in reaching the Court has not been properly explained. Furthermore, the medical testimony adduced by P.W.7 Doctor did not corroborate the evidence of eye-witnesses P.W1 and PW3. Though initially PW3 stated about the occurrence in support of prosecution, ultimately, he did not support the prosecution when he was recalled and cross-examined subsequently and as such, the conviction cannot be based only on the strength of the evidence of P.W.1, who is the son of the deceased. Though one Murugan, another son of the deceased, was one of the eye-witnesses, he was not examined by the prosecution to prove its case and there is no reason as to why the said witness was not examined. The evidence of P.W.1 would show that so many details given in the deposition with reference to the overt acts are improvements and those details are not mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint given by him. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the accused is not legal.