He did number prefer any further appeal before this Court.
It may also be numbered that according to the prosecution, there was a companyspiracy amongst A 1 to A 8 and pursuant to the same the appellant A 5 and A 4 attempted to companymit robbery and in furtherance of their companymon intention A 4 shot the deceased.
The prosecution also produced material objects which were marked as M.O. 1 to 26.
15/1A, Seahadri Road, Srirangam.
So far as the appellant is companycerned, the Sessions Judge found him guilty of the offences punishable under Section 398 and 457 1 IPC and found him number guilty of the charge under Section 120 B, 449, 302 read with 34 IPC as well as under Section 3 read with 25 1 B a of the Indian Arms Act.
P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 raised hue and cry.
The deceased got up from his chair and moved towards them asking as to why they have entered the house.
Rest of the accused were acquitted of all the charges.
Sub inspector Bharth Srinivasan PW 25 attached to Srirangam Police Station based on the companyplaint of Sripriya PW 1 issued first information report and registered a case in crime No.
149 of 2004.
At that time two men came and stood at the entrance of the house.
The learned Sessions Judge upon appreciation of evidence available on record found A 4 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and the High Court companyfirmed the same in appeal.
The prosecution case, in brief, is that Venkatesan Seshastripuram the deceased was living together with his wife Sripriya PW 1 , mother Padmaja PW 2 and other family members at No.
P.C. was recorded in which he abjured the guilt and claimed trial.
P.W. 3 immediately with the help of P.W. 1 took the deceased to Srirangam Dhanvandhri Hospital.
PW 2 while narrating the incident more or less gave the same version but however, stated that both the appellant as well as A 4 were carrying pistols.
The prosecution in all examined 26 witnesses PW 1 to PW 26 and got marked 36 documents in evidence.
W.1 went to her senior father in laws house and informed Vamsidhar PW 3 about the incident.
The statement of the accused appellant under Section 313 Cr.
The State as well as the appellant preferred appeals against the verdict of the Sessions Judge.
The deceased was in the business of pharmaceuticals.
The deceased fell down on the floor.
After having food the deceased along with his wife PW 1 and mother PW 2 were watching television programme.
On 22.10.2003, at about 8.45 p.m. the deceased came back to his house from the work in drenched companydition.
He took out the cash from his shirt pocket, kept the same on the sofa and went to the companyputer room and after changing clothes took his meal.
Immediately the person who was standing to the right of P.W. 1 shot the deceased with the gun.
After companypletion of the investigation, the police filed charge sheet under Sections 120 B, 398, 449, 302/34 IPC and section 3 read with 25 1 B a of the Indian Arms Act against the appellant and seven other companyaccused.
The victim was accordingly taken to the Kavery Medical Centre.
Sudershan Reddy, J. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure read with provisions of the Supreme Court Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1970 impugning the judgment and order of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court in Criminal Appeal MD No.
PW 3 informed the incident to the Srirangam Police Station over phone.
Thereafter, the two men ran away.
PW 26, the Investigating Officer in his evidence admitted that PW 2 did number make any statement during inquiry that both the persons who had entered her house were carrying guns.
Doctor Murali PW 17 gave first aid treatment to the deceased and having regard to the grievous nature of injuries advised to take the victim to the Kavery Medical Centre for further treatment.
724 of 2003 under Sections 452, 307 IPC and Section 3 read with 25 of the Indian Arms Act.
